
Qass I— 5S( 



I 



/ 



f 



^ 



X 



SUPPj 



TO TH9 



AMERICAN 



!••■ 



AHO 



mMMUnCIM BMLY ADrMRTISER. 



AN EXPOSITION 



O-'? THE 



•CAUSES AND CHAllACTER 



OP Tfi* 



LATE WAE WITH G. BEITAH^T. 



BaUimorCj April 1815. 



AN EXPOSITION 






C.IUSES ,1A'J) CHARACTER 



LATE WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 

THE extravagant pretensions of the British commissioners 
at Ghent, their assertion of a right to interfere v.ith the terri, 
torial dominion established at the peace of 1783 — Ihcir attempt 
to assert that the Indians residing; on our soil were entitlp*^ to 
form alliances, and to be treated as a civilized people, » 
laws of civil society to which the Indian tribes are stra 
the attempt to cut off a section of our territory, under the pre- 
test of a road between Canada and Nova Scotia, for which there 
would be no need in peace, and which would afford them an inroac 
upon us during war— their occupancy of a part of Massachusett; 
unmolested by the state authority — their known designs on Oi- 
lcans: all these and other facts known to the government of th?. 
XJ. States, left little prospect of a peace in the eaily part of tha 
present year; it is believed that the government was apprized 
in the rlose of the last year, that peace could have been accom_ 
plished in August 1814\ were it not for the encoura<icrnent which 
the British govern.hent received from three of the Eastern 
states to persevere in the war. tn these views, the exec»tive 
had determined to make a full and final appeal to the Ameman 
People, aad by presenting at one view to the country the cai^es 
and tlie progress of the war, shew the necessity of such mgh- 
ty and efficient preparations for the campaign of this yeai, as 
would assure its successful and triumphant termination by the 
certain expulsion of the enemy from all his posscssioi 
continent. The measure pp.oposed by the Secretai*y 
for raising 100,000 men, Vliaf part of this plan of vigoruus mea- 
sures ; and a declaration -or" exposition was prepared to go !o 
the public ; this able paper was ready for publication when tie 
advices of a ])race being concluded were received — a copy ofit 
k%a accidentally fallen into our hands, and wc think we can \o 
x»o better ocrvice than give it to the public, as the best raeii.n.s;)f 
repelling tViP ribaldry i.^sucd by those who^c chagrin is Cititd 
tf> the greatest extravagance by the successful auc^gloriojstr- 
minatioo of the war.— •—Aurora. 



jiJV EXrOSITIOK, C^c. 



Whatever may be the termination of the ncgociations at 
Ghent, the dispatches of the American commissioners, which 
have been comniunicated by tlie President of the United States 
to Congress, during the present session, will distinctly unfold 
to the.impartial of all nations, the objects and dispositions of 
\ tb'» parties to the present war. 

- iie United States, relieved by the general pacification of 
the treaty of Paris, from the danger of actual sufterance, tinder 
the evils which had compelled the?m to resort to arnis', have a- 
vowed their readiness to resume the relations oi" peace and ami- 
1y with Great Britain, upon the simple and single condition of 
preserving their territory and their sovereignty entire and un- 
impaired. Their desire of peace, indeed, "upon terms of reci- 
jrocity, consistent with the rights of botli parties, as sovereign 
avjd independent nations,"* has not, at any time, been influenc- 
ed by the provocations of an unprecedented course of hostili- 
tie ; by the incitements of a successful campaign ; or by the a- 
gi'.ations which have seemed again to threaten the tranquility 
of Europe. 

Bat theRri'isli goTernment, after " a discussion with the go- 
ve'nment of America, for the conciliatory adjustment of the 
diferences subsisting bftweefi the two slates, with an earnest 
deire on their part (as it was aliedged) to bring them to a favo- 
rable issue, upon principles of a perfect reciprocity, not incon- 
eis;entwith the cstr4blished maxims of public law, and with the 
maritime rights of the British empire ;'"f and after "expressly 
dio'.laiming any intention to acquire an increase nf teriitory,"!: 
ha^s laeremptorily demanded, as the price of peace, concessions 
ited merely for their own agijrandisement, and for the 
ation of their adversary. At one time, they proposed, as 
'' le qua non, a stipulation that the Indians inhabiti^ig (he 
vj.iu.i'.i. y. of the United States, within the limit? estF.bliihed by 
fie treaty of 1783, should be iiHiu<?ed as tlie allies of Great 
h'Jtain (a.party to thattreaty> in the projected pacification ; and 
^hat the definite boundarieR should be settled for the Indian ter- 
iltcry. upon a basis which wonid have operated to snrren(iorto 
sri'.unber of Indians, not prohr.bly, exceeding a few tliousands, 
the rights of sovereignty, a? well as of soil, over neoily ore 
thiid of the territorial dominions of the United States, inhabit- 

• .ee Mr. Mwiroe'.s letter to lord Castiereagh, dated Januavv, l^U. 
t ^eelord Castlereag-h's l€tter to Mr. Monroe, dated tie 4lh of NoveiTiher, 

4 fr-.e +i)« American dispi.tcb. dat>-d t'le IStli of August, 1814. 



4 

odby more than one hundred thousand of its citizens.jj And 
more recently, (withdrawing, in effect, that proposition) ih& 
have offered to treat on the basis of tlie uti possidetis ; whei, 
by the operations of the war, they had obtained the military 
possession of an important part of the state of Massachusett, 
which, it was known, could never be the subject of a cessioi^ 
consistently with the honor and faith of the American govefh 
ment.* Thus, it is obvious, that C4reat Britain, neither r- 
garding *' the principles of a perfect reciprocity," nor the ru5 
of her own practice and professions, has indulged pretension, 
which could only he heard in order to be rejected. The alte- 
native, either vindicJively to protract the v^ar, or honorably o 
end it, has been fairly given to her option; but she wants tie ; 
magnanimity to decide, while her apprehensions are awakeneJ, 
for the result of the Congi-ess at Vienna, and her hopes n'e 
flattered, by the schemes of conquest in America. 

There are periods in the transactio:is of every country as 
well as in the life of every individual, when self examination 
becomes a duty of the highest moral obligation; when the go- 
vernment of a free people, driven from the path of peace, md 
baffled in everj' effort to regain it, may resort for consjla- 
tion to the conscious rectitude of its measures ; and when an 
appeal to mankind founded upon truth and justice, cannot fail 
to engage those sympathies, by which even nations are l?d to 
pj-rtit'-ipate in the fame and fortunes of each other. The Unit- 
ed States, under these impr-ossions, are neither insensible tc 
the advantages, nor to the duties of their peculiar situatbn. — ■ 
They have but recently, as it were, established their independ- 
ence ; and the volume of their national history lies open at a 
glance, to ever eye. The policy of their government, thejefore, 
whatever it has been, in their forcitiiins well as in their fomes- 
tic relations, it ib impossible to conceal ; and it must be dflicult 
to mistake. If the assertion, that it has been a pohc}' o pre- 
serve peace and aniity with all the nations of the wcrld be 
doubted, the proofs are at hand. If the assfrtion, thai it has 
been a policy to maintain the rights of the United Stales, but 
at the same "time to respect the riglits of every otlier nation, be 
doubted, the proofs will be exhibited, if the asseition. that it 
has been a policj' to act impartially tov.-ards the beilig<re;it 
powers of Europe, be doubted, the proofs will be found or. re- 
'•oi-d, even in tlie archives of England and of France. Andif, in 

II S.'c llii- .Vinci-icundispatdics, J:\tcil the 12tli and 19lh of Aiig'iist.JSHs 
the note (»t the Hr'itisli commissioners, dated tlie l9ih of Aug-usi, ISI,.; ihe 
Hole of the AineiicHii couinusfjioiicrs, dated iLe 2lsl of AuKHf-', l8!4; the 
note of the Uilfish conniiissioiirrs, dated the 4lli of Sti.tt-D.ln-i', IHU; the 
uu'c of ihc American comniiiisioneiv-i t-f tlie 9.h of Sept. Irfli; tic rote of 
tlie IJrllish commissioners, dated 'he. I'J h Sop'. 1814 ; thf note of lie \n!c- 
ric:tH c.jmmissioiiers, dated tlie 2(5'di of SccA 181 1 ; i!ie note of tfe Eritisii 
commissioners dated the SUi of Uc'>. 1614 ; and the wole of the VniLiiica;? 
commissioi.cri;, <'f the l.jlhofOd. 1SI4. 

• bee tlic ii'/te of the liritjih r.ommij,ioners dated Ihe 21st of ♦'-t. 181 i , 
tiic n^lc (if the Ame;-icaii commi.isionera, dated llie 24ih of Oct ftl4 i ;»n'i 
Aac ::jIi; oi Kha lifi'lirh commijsicT.er.'', dnUd tUc 3'st of Oct. 181i. 



line, the asseTlion that it lias been a policy, by all lionoTabic 
means, to cultivate with Great Brituin those sentiments of mu- 
tual good will which naturally belong to nations connected 
by the ties of a common ancestry, an identity of language, and 
a similarity of manners, be doubted, the proofs will be found in 
that^ patient forbearance, under the pressure cf accumulating 
wrongs, which marks the period of almost thirty years, that e- 
lapsed between the peace of 1783, and the rupture of 1812. 

The United States had just recovered, under the auspices of 
theif present constitution, from the debility which their i-evolu- 
tionary struggle had produced, when the convulsive move- 
ments of France excited throughout the civilized world the 
mingled sensations of hope and fear — of admiration and alarm,. 
The interest which those movements would, in themselves, have 
excited, was incalculably increased, however, as soon as Great 
Britam became a party to the first memorable coalition against 
France, and assamed the character cf a belligerent power ; for, 
it was obvious, that the di.3tance of the scene would no longer 
exempt the United States from the influence and the evils of 
the European conflict On the one hand, their government 
was connected with France by treaties of alliance and com- 
merce ; and the services which that nation had rendered to the 
cause of American independence, had made such impressions 
upon the public mind, as no virtuous statesman could rigidly 
condemn, and the most rigorous statesman would have sought 
in vain to efface. On the other hand, Great Britain, leavirg 
the treaty of 1783 unexecuted, forcibly retained the American 
posts upon the northern frontier ; and, slighting every overture 
to place the diplomatic and commerciai relations of the two 
countries upon a fair and friendly foundation.f seemed to con- 
template the success of the American revolution, in a spirit of 
unextinguisliable animosity. Her voice had, indeed, been heard 
from Quebec and 3Iontreai, instigating the savages to war J — 
Her invisible arm was felt in the defeats of general HarmerH 
and general St Chii-,^ and even tlie victory of general Waynelf 
was achieved in t!;.'> presence of a fort which she had erected, 
far within thtf. tertitorial boundaries of the United States, to sti- 
mulate andcouutenance the barbarities of the Indian \varrioi\** 
Yet the American government, neither yielding to popular 
feeling, nor acting upon the impulse of national resentment, 
hastened to adopt the policy of a strict and steady neutrality— .' 
and solem.ilv announced that policy to thecitizensat home, and 
to the nations abroad, by the proclamation of the 22d of April, 
J 793. Whatever may have been the trials of its pride^ and of 

I See .>Ir, Adams's correspondence. 

i See the speeche.'; of lord Doi Chester. 

« On the waters of the Miami of the like, on tlie 21st of October, 1790. 

§ At Fort recover}', on the 4th of Novemher, 17^1. 

U OntI)e Miami of h.kcs, in August 1794. 

♦» See the correspondence between Mr. Randolph, the Amer'ean secretary, 
t>f state, and Mr. Hammoud, the British plenipotentiary, dated Mav and 
•)^lne, 1794. 



e 

lis fortitude ; whatever may have been the iaiputatiens upon its 
fidelity and its honor, it will be demon.-?t rated in the sequel, that 
the American government, thronghout the European contest, 
and amidst all the changes of the objects and the parties that 
have been involved in that contest, have inflexibly adhered to 
the principles which were tjnis, autlioritatively, established to 
regalate the conduct of tlje United State^?. 

it was reasonable to expect that a proclamation of neutrality, 
issued under the circumstances wjiich have been describtid, 
vrould command the contidcnce and respect of Great Britain, 
however offensive it might prove to France, as contravening es- 
sentially the exposition which she was anxious to bestow on the 
treaties of commerce and alliance. But experience has shown, 
that the confidence and respect of Great Britain arc jiot to be 
acquired by such aces of impartiality and independence. Un- 
der every administration of the American government, tlie ex- 
perimect has been made, and the experiment has been equally 
unsuccessful; for it was not more effectually ascertained in tha 
year 1&12, than at antecedent periods, that an exemption from 
the maritime usurpation, and the commercial monopoly of G. 
Britain could only be obtained upon the condition of becoming 
an associate in her enmities and her wars. While the ppocla- 
mation of neutrality was still in the viev^ of the British minister, 
an order of the 8th of June, 1793, issued from the cabinet, hy 
virtue of which, "all vessels loaded wholly or in part with 
corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, or any port 
occupied by the armies of France," were required to be carried 
forcibly into England, and the cargoes were either to be sold 
there, or security was to be given that they should only be sold 
in the ports of a country in amity with his Britannic majesty * 
The moral character of an avowed design to inflict famine upon 
the whole of the French people, was at that time, properly es- 
timated throughout the civilized world ; and so glaring an in- 
fraction of neutral rights, as the British order was calculated 
to produce, did not escape the severities of diplomatic animad- 
version and remonstrance. But this aggression was soon fol- 
lowed by another of a more hostile cast. In the war of )7 36« 
Great Britain had endeavored to establish the rule, that neutral 
nations were not entitled to enjoy th« benefits of a trade with 
the colonies of a belligerent power, from which, in the season 
of peace, they wore excluded by th<: parent state. The rule 
stands %vithout any positive support from any general authority 
■ on public law. If it be true, that some treaties contain stipula- 
tions, by jvhieh the parties expressly exclude each other from 
the commerce of their respective colonies ; and if it betroe, tliat 
the ordinances of a particular state often provide for the exclu- 
sive enjoyment of its colonial commerce ; still Great Britain 
cannot be aothv)riscd to deduce the rule of the war of 1750, by 
implication, from such treaties and such ordnances, while it is 



• 6ce liic Older in council of tlie 8th of June, 17^3, and the remonstrance 
of tlitt American gyvenimcnt. 



n»jt true, that the rule forms a part of the law of nations j nor 
that it has been adopted by any other government ; nor that e- 
vcn Great Britain herself has uniformly practised upon the 
rule ; smce its application was unknowTi from the "war of 1756, 
ujitil the French war of 1792, including the entire period of 
the Auierican war. Let it be, argumenlatively, allowed, how- 
ever, that Great Britain possessed the right, as well as the pow- 
er, to revive and enforce the rule; yet, the time and the man- 
ner of exercising the pq.\iipr, would alTord ample causes for re- 
proach. The citizens'of the United States had openly engag- 
ed in an extensive traij'^f with the French islarids in the ^Vest 
Indies, ignorant of the ailfedgcd existence of the rule of tho war 
of l7o6, or unapprised of any intention tocall it into action, 
when the order oftlie 6th 9f -November, 17V3 was silently cir- 
culated among the British cruisers, consigning to legal adjudi- 
cation " all vessels loadcn with goods, the produce of any colo- 
ny of France, or carrying provisions or supplies for the use of 
any such colony ."f A great portion of the commerce of the 
United States was thus annihilated at a blow; the amicable 
dispositions of the government were again disregarded and con- 
temned; the sensibility of the nation was excited to a high de- 
gree of resentment, by the apparent treachery of the British or- 
der; and a recourse to reprisals, or to war, for indemnity and 
redress, seemed to be unavoiJ^'ble. But the love of justice had es^- 
tablished the law of neutrality; and the love of peace taught a 
lesson of forbearance. The American government, therefore, 
rising superior to the provocations- and the passions of the day, 
instituted a special mission to represent, at the court of London, 
the injuries and the indignities which it had suffered ; " to vin- 
dicate its rights with firmness, and to cultivate peace with sin- 
cerity.":}: The immediate result of this mission, was a treaty of 
amity, commerce, and navigation, between the United States 
and Gi-eat Britain which was signed by the negociators on the 
T9th of November, 4794, and finally ratitied, with the consent 
of the Senate, in the year 1795. But both the mission and ita 
result, serve also to display the independence and the impartiali- 
ty of the x^merican government, in asserting its rights and 
perfoi'ming its duties, equally unawed and unbiassed by the in- 
stiuments of belligerent power or persuasion. 

pn the foundation of this treaty the United States, in a pure 
sprit of good faith and confidence, raised the hope and the ex- 
pectation, thcit the maritime usurpations of Great Britain would 
ctase to annoy them ; that all doubtful claims of jurisdiction 
v^ould be suspended ; and that even the exercise of an inron- 
tislible right would be so modified, as to present neither insult 
lor outrage, nor incovenience, to their flagor to their commerce , 
lut the hope and the expectation of the United* States have, 
?een fatally disappointed. Some relaxation in the I'igor, with-. 

I f Seethe British order of the 6th of November, 1793. 

/ 4: See the president's message to the senate, of the 15th of April 1794 

iROiiunating iMr. Jay as envoy exuraordinavy tu his BriluuHic majesty. 



ovrt any alteratioTJ in the principle, of the order in council of 
the 6th November, 1793, was introduced by the subsequent or- 
ders of the 8th of January, 1794, and the 25th of January, 1798: 
but from the ratification of the treaty of 1794, until the short 
rcepite afforded by the treaty of Amiens, in 1802, the com- 
merce of the United States continued to be the prey of Biritish 
cruisers and privateers, under the adj^udicating patronage of the 
British tribunals. Another gri<;vance, however, assumed at this 
epoch a form and magnitude which casta shade over the social 
happ'ness, as well as the political independence of the nation — 
The merchant vessels of the United States were arrested on the 
high seas, while in the prosecution of distant voyages ; consi- 
derable numbers of their crews were impressed into the naval 
service of Great Britain ; the commercial adventures. of the own- 
ers were often, consequently, defeated; and the loss of proper- 
ty, the embarrassments of trade and navigation, and the scene 
of domestic atBiction, became intolerable. This grievance 
(which constitutes an important surviving cause of the Ameri- 
can declaration of war) was early, and has been incessantly, ur- 
ged upon the attention of the British government. Even in the 
year 1792, they were told of " the irritation that it had excited 
—and of thediffienlty of avoiding to make immediate reprisals 
on their seamen in the United States.'",! They were told " that 
80 many inetances of the kind had happened, that it was quite 
necessary that they should explain themselves- on the subject, 
and be allowed to disavow and punish such violence, which had 
never been experienced from any other nation."^ And they were 
told " of the inconvenience of such conduct, and of the impossi- 
bility of letting it go on, so that the British ministry should be 
made sensible of the necessity of punishing the past, and pre- 
venting the future.'"1f But after the treaty of amity, commerce, 
and navigation, had been ratified, the nature and the extent of 
the grievance became still more manifest ; and it was clearly 
and firmly presented to the view of the British government, 
as leading unavoidably to discord and war between the two na- 
tions. Tliey were told, " that unless they would come to some 
accommodation which might ensure the American seamen a- 
gainst this oppression, measuree would be taken to cause tht 
incouvenieiMje to be equally felt on both sides*. They were tcld 
'■that the impressment of American citizens, to serve on boa-d 
of British armed vessels, was not only an injury to the unfortu- 
nate individuals, but it naturally excited certain emotions in the 
breasts of the nation to whom they belong, and of the ju.st an! 
humane of every country ; and that an expectation was indulg- 
ed that orders would be given, that the Americans so circun.. 
slanccd should be immediately liberated, and that the Britisk 

U See J.c letter of Mr. .Jefferson, secretary of sUte, to Mr. Pinkney, mi< 
nisttrat Loiulon, ilalecl llih of June, 1792. 

^ See llic klter from the same to llie s-imc, dated the 12th of Oct. 1792. 

^Sce the letter from tlieaaim- to the same, daicd Uic 6ih Kov. 17i'2. 

• See Uie lelier from Mr. I'inkiiey, minister ul London, to llie secretary of 
ptat", dittd 13iU Maich, J79J. 



officers should in future abstain from similar violencea.** They 
were told, "that the subject -was of much greater importance 
than had been supposed ; and that, instead of a few. and those 
in many instances equivocal caseB, the American Kiinister at 
the court of London had, in nine months, (part of the years 
1796 and 1797) made applications for the discharge of two hun- 
dredand seventy one seamen, wlio had, in most cases, oxh;bit- 
ed such evidence as to satisfy him, that they were real Ameri- 
cans, forced into the British service and persevering, general' 
ly, in refusing pay aad bounty "J They were told. " that if the 
British goreniment had any regard to the right& of the United 
■States, any respect for the nation, and placed any value on their 
friendship, it would facilitate the means of relieving their op 
pressed citizens.''}! They were told, "that the British naval 
officers often impressed Swedes, Danes, and other foreigners^ 
from the vessels of the United States; that they might, with 
as much reason, rob American vessels of the property or mer- 
chandise of Swedes, Danes, and Portuguese, as seize and detain 
in their service the subjects of those nations found on board of 
American vessels; and that the president was extremely anx- 
ious to have this business of impressing placed on a reasonable 
footing.''^ And they were told, " that the impressment of Ame- 
rican seamen was an injury of very serious magjiitude, which 
deeply affected the feelings and honor of the nation; that no 
right had been asserted.to impress the natives of America j yet 
that they were impressed ; they were dragged on board British 
ships of war with the evidence of citizenship in their hands, 
and forced by violence there to serv^until eonelusiv* testimo- 
nials of their birth could be obtained ; that many must perish 
unrelieved, and all were detained a considerable time, in law- 
less and injurious confinement; that the continuance of the 
practice must inevitably produce discord between two nations 
which ought to be the friends of each other; aad that it was 
more advisable to desist from, and to take effectual measures to 
prevent, an acknowledged wrong, than by perseverance in that 
wrong, to excite against themselves the well founded resent- 
ments of America, and force the government into measure3^. 
which may very possibly terminate in an open ruptv.re" t 
Such were the feehngs and the sentimeirts of the American 

governmentunder every change ofits administration, in relation 
to the British practice of imprcssnient ; and such the nmon- 
Strances ad dressed to the justice of Great Britain. It is obvi- 

30*h^ J uk ^ -qJ ^^ ^' ■ "^^^'^ ^"^^^ extraordinar.v, to lord Granville, date' the 

A t ^^V^''o'*i■"^f ^^ ■'^*^- "^'"Si minister at London, to the secretary of state, 
dated Lhe 13th of April, 1797. ' 

II See the letter uf Mr. Pickering secretary of sUite, to \fr. Kin^, minister 
at Londor-, duttd the 10th of September, 1796. 
^^1 See the letter from the same to the same, dated the 26th of October, 

»».^r!'^.*^^i***^'' ^"■'"" ^^- ^^•'iisball, secietary of state, (now chief justice of 
k im. *^^"'> *o Wr.Jtiiiff», maiuitee at London, dnted the 2Uh Scyt.'. 



10 

om, therefore, that this cause, independent of everv other haa 
been un,fon«ly deemed a just and certain cause 7f war ye? 
the characteristic polic-j of the United States still prevailed ' 
remonstrance was only succeeded by negociation ; and every 
assertion of A mencan rig-l.ts was accompunied with an over^ 
ture to secure, in any practicable form, the rights of Great Bri- 
Snl . ' f" '"''''^i however, to rei^der it more and more 

difficult to asoertatn and hx the standard of the British riohts 
according to the succession of the British claim*. T^'e ri^^ht of 
tenng and searching an Americair merchant ship, for the pur- 
pose of impressment, was, for a while, confined to the case of 

f«nn »V '*^''' '^?'^ ^'''" ''' ^^^^ ^^ ^^'^ "^«i^th of February, 

1800, the minister of his Britannic majesty, then at Philadel' 
phia, urged the American government, >' to"take into considera- 
tion, as the only means of drying up every source of complaint 
and irritation, upon that head, a proposal which he had made 
two years before, m the name of his majesty's government, for 
the reciprocal restitution of deserters.'ft But this piojpct of a 
treaty was then de^-med inadmissible, by the president of the 
tnited States, and the chief ofHcers of the executive depart- 
ments of the government, whom he consulted for the same rea- 
son, specifically, which, at a subsequent period, induced the 
president of the U. States, to withhold his approbation from the 
treaty negociated by the American ministers at London, in the 
year ]80d ; namely: " that it did not sufficiently provide a^-ain^t 
the impressment of American seamen ;"Hfind "that it is better 
to have no article, and to meet the consequences, than not t» 
enumerate merchant vess^ on the high seas, amnn.^ the things 
not to be forcibly entered in search of desertors;-] U But the 
British claim, expanding with singular elasticity, was soon 
found to include a right to enter American vessels on the high 
seas, in order to search for and seiae all British seamen ; it next 
embraced the case of every British subject; and finally, in its 
practical enfox-cement, it has been extended to every mariner 
who could not prove, upon the spot, that he was a citizen of the 
United States. 

While the nature of the British claim was thus ambiguous 
and fluctuating, the principle to which it was referred, for jus- 
titication and support, appeared to be, at once, arbitrary and ii- 
fUsory. It was not recorded in any positive code of the law of 
nations ; it was not displayed in the elementary works of the ci- 
^'^'■'^" ; "«r had it ever been exemplitiod in the mariiime usages 

•* See particularly, Mr. Kinf,-'s propositions to lord Gix-iivillr, and lord 
i^:i^^■kcJ,hn^■y, of tie 13th April, 1797, the loth of March, 1799. Uie 25tli 
Jth. I8()l,!mcl in J.ily 1R13. 

.. ^^ ■'i'^'^ n^^- y^*'"^'^ »o'e to Mr, Pickering-, the secretary of slate, dated 
the 'ith of Feb. 1800. 

t ( See the opi.iioM of Mr. Pickerinqf, secretary of state, enclosing- the plan- 
ot a treaty, dated the 3d ;\t..y, 1900, and \\k- opinion of Mr. Wolcotl, secie- 
tary ot the trea-uiiv, ilatcd '.a- 14th of A-ril, 1800. 

Ill See tlic opinion of >;r. Stoddci-t, s xretary of the navv, dated (he 230. 
o. .Apnl, Um and the opiuion.s of Mr. Lec,.ation.cv general dated, the 25li». 
9i J-cb. and IhtSUlli of April, 1800. 



11 

of any other country, in any other age. In tnith, it ttrs tfic oft- 
spring of the municipal kw of Great Britain alone ; equally o- 
perative in a time of peace, and in a time of war ; and, under 
all circumstances, inflicting a coercive jurisdiction, upon the 
commerce and navigation of the world. 

For the legitimate rights of the belligerent powers, the Vni- 
ted States had felt and evinced a sincere and open rcs-pect. Al- 
though they had marked a diversity of doctrineamong the most 
viekbratcd jurists, upon many of the litigated points of the law 
of war j although they had formerly espoused, with the example 
of the most powerful government of Europe, the principles of 
theai'med neutrality, which were eslablished in the year 1780, 
upon the basis of the memorable declaration of the emprcsb of 
all the Russias; and although the principles of th.at declaration 
have been incorporated into all their public treaties, exempt in 
the instance of the treaty of 1794 ; yet, the United States, still 
faithful to the pacific and impartial policy which they profetsed, 
did not hesitate, even at the commi-ncement of the French revo- 
lutionary war, to accept and allovr the exposition of the law of 
nations, as it was then maintained by Great Britain ; and, con- 
sequently, to admit, upon a much contested point, that the pro- 
perty of her enemy, in their vessels, might be lawfully captur- 
ed as prize of war.* It was, also, freely admitted, that a bel- 
ligerent power had a right with proper cautions, to enter and 
search American vessels, for the goods of an enemy, and for 
articles contraband of war ; that, if upon a search, such goods 
or articles were found, or if, in the course of the search, per- 
sons in the military service of the enemy weie discovered, a bel- 
ligerent had a right, in doubtful cases, to carry American ves- 
sels to a convenient station, for further examination ; and that a 
belligerent had a right to exclude American vessels from ports 
and places, under the blockade of an adequate naval force.-^ 
These rights the law of nations might, reasonably, be deemed 
to sanction ; nor has a fair eyercise of the powers necetsary 
for the enjoyment of these rights, been, at any time, controvert- 
ed, or opposed, by the American government. 

But, it miust be again remarked, that the claim of Great Bri- 
tain was not to be satisfied, by the most an. pie and explicit re- 
cognitioH of the law of war ; for, the law of war treats only of 
the relations of a belligerent to his enemy, while the claim of 
Great Britain embi'aced, also, the relations between a sovereign 
and his sulijccts. It was said, that eveiy British subject was 
bound by a tie of allegiance to his sovereign, which no lapse 
of time, no change of place, no exigency of life, could possibly 
weaken, or dissolve. It was said, that the British sovereign 
was entitled, at all periods, and on all occasions, to the servi- 
ces of his subjects. And it was said, that the Britii»!h vessels of 

* See the con'espontlence of the ye; r 1 792 between Mr. Jefferson, scci : la- 
ry of stale, und the ministers of Great Britain aid Frnnce. S( e also Mr. 
Jetrcrsou's letter to the American mmister at Faris, of the same year, re- " 
•.juestii'g the recall of yir. Genet. 



12 

•WW upMi the high seas, might lawfully and forcibly enter the- 
merchant vessels of every other nation (for the theory of these 
pretensions is not limited to the case of the United States, al- 
though that case ha? been, almost exclusively, affected by their 
practical operation) for the purpose of discovering and impress- 
ing British subjects.f The United States presume not to dis- 
cuss the forms, orlhe principles^ of the governments established; 
in other countries. Enjoying the right and the blessing of self- 
government, they leave, implicitly, to every foreign nation, the 
choice of its social and political institutions. But, vi^hatever may 
be the form, or the principle, of government, it is an universal 
axiom of public law, among sovereign and independent states, 
that every nation is bound so to use and enjoy its own rights, an 
Mot to injure, or destroy, the rights of any other nation. Say 
then, that the tie of allegiance cannot be severed, or relaxed, a.s • 
rcspects-the sovereign and the subject; and say, that the sover- 
eign is, at all times, entitled to the services of the subject ; titill, 
there is nothing gained, in support of the British claim, unless 
rt can, also be said, that the British sovereign has a right to 
seek and seize his subject, while actually within the dominion, 
OP under the special protection, of another sovereign state, 
This will not, surely, be denominated a process of the lawof na- 
tions, for the purpose of enforcing the rights of war ; and if it 
ahall be tolerated as a process of the municipal law of Great 
Britain, for the purpose of enforcing the right of the sovereign 
to the service of his subjects, there is no principle of diacrimi- 
jjation, which can prevent its being employed in peace, or in 
war, with all the attendant abuses of force and fraud, to justify 
the seizure of British subjects for crimes, or fur debts; and the 
seizure of British property, for any cause that shall be arbitra- 
rily assigned. The introductionof these degrading novelties in- 
to the maritime code of nations, it has bsen the arduous task 
oftfie American government, in the onset, to oppose; and it 
rests with all other goyernmen'^s to decide, how far their honour 
and their interests must be eventually implicated, by a tacit 
acquiesceno^, in tfie successive usurpations of the British Hag. 
If the right claimed by Great Britain be, indeed, common te 
all govermnints, the ocean will exhibit, in addition to its many 
other p u'ils, a scene of everlasfing strife and contoation ; but 
wh«t other governmimt has ever claimed or exorcised the right? 
if the right shall be exclu-iiv ly established as :v trop};y of the 
naval suneriority of Great Britain, the ocean, which has been 
somptimcs emphatically denominat'd, " the Ingiiway of na- 
tions.'' will be identified, in occupancy and use, with the do- 
minions of the British crown ; and overy othfr natinn must >n- 
joy the libiM-ty of pa'>s;tge, upon the payment of a trihute or tho 
indulgence of a lie nee : but what nation is prepared for this sa- 
crifice, of its honor and its interests ? .\nd if, after all, the rioht 
be now asserted (as expprience too plainly indicate.') for the 
purpose of impos ng upon the United States, to accomniadata 

t^^cc the Bi-iti^h «k-ci<uatioi) uf Ui£ i^lb tit' January, l&li 



13 

the British maritime policy, anew and odious limitation of the 
sovereio-uty and independence, which were acquired by the glo- 
rioU8 revolution of 1776, it is not for the American government 
to calculate the duration of a war, that shall be waged, in re- 
sistance to the active attempts of Great Britain, to accomplish 
her project ; for, v;here is the American citizen, wht> would to- 
iei-ate a day's submission, to the vassalage of such a condi- 
tion? 

But the American goverment has seen, with some surprize, 
the gloss, which the Prince Regent of Great Britain, in his d«- 
claration of the 10th of January, 1813, haa condescended to bes- 
tow upon the British claim of a right to impress men, on board 
of the merchant vessels of other nations ; and the retort, which 
he has ventured to make, upon the conduct of the United State?, 
relative to the controverted doctrines of expatriation. The A- 
merican government, like every other civilized government, a- 
vows the principle, and indulges the practice, of naturalizing 
foreigners. In Great Britain, and throughout the continent of 
Europe, the laws and i*egulations upon the subject, are not ma- 
terially dissimilaT, when eompared with the laws and regula- 
tions of the United States The effect, however, of such natu- 

•ralization, upon the connexion, which previously subsisted, be- 
tween the naturalized person, and the government of the coun- 
try of his birth, has been differently considered, at different 
times, and in different places. Still, there are many respects, 
in which a diversity of opinion does not exist, and cannot arise. 
It is agi'eed, on all hands, that an act of naturalisation is not a 
violation of the law of nations ; and that, in particular, it is not 
in itself, ioi offence against the government, whose subject is na- 
turalized. It is agreed, that an act of naturalization creates, 
betAveen the parties, the reciprocal obligations of allegiance and 
protection. It is agreed, that while a naturalized citizen con- 
tinues within the territory and jurisdiction of his adoptive go- 
vernment, he cannot be pursued, or seized, or restrained,^ by 

.his former sovereign. It is agreed, that a naturah'zed citizen, 
whatever may be thought of the claims of the-sovereign of his 
native country, cannot lawfully be withdrawn from the obliga- 
tions of his contract of naturalisation, by the force, or these- 
duction of athird pov/er. And it is agreed, that no sovereign 
can lawfully interfere, to take from the service, or the employ- 
nient, of another sovereign, persons who are not the subjects of 
either of the eovereigiis engaged in the transaction. Beyond 
the principles of these accorded propositions, what have theU- 
nited States done to justify the imputation of "harboring Bri- 
tish seanion, ;md ofexerciaing anassunicd right to transfer the 
.illegiance of British .'■ubjects'-"* Tlie United Stales have, in- 
leed, insisted upon the right of navigating the ocean in peace 
and saf.-ty. protecting all that is covered by their flag, as on a 
place of equal and common jurisdiction to all nations; save 
where the law of war interposes the exceptions of visituli^i.; 



iss Uic Briiisli decUratioiVof tlic tOtli of January, 1813. 



u 

search, and capture : but, in doing this, ths} have done .no 
wrong. The United States, in perfect consistency, it ii believ- 
ed, with the practice of all belligerent nations, not even except- 
ing Great Britain herself, have, indeed, announced a determina- 
tion, since the declaration of hostilities, to afford protection, as 
well to {he naturalized, as to the native citizen, who, giving 
the strongest proofs of lidelity, should be taken in arms by the 
enemy ; and the British cabinet, well know tliat this determi- 
nation could have no influence upon those councils of their so- 
vereign, which preceded and produced the war. It was rot, 
then, to " harbor British seamen," nor to "transfer the alle- 
giance of British subjects ;" nor to " cancel the jurisdiction' of 
tbeir le,i,iti;nate sovereign ;" nor to vindicate " the pretension 
tliat acts of naturalization, and eeri^ificates of citizenship, were 
as valid out of their ow^n territory, as within it ;'''f that the U- 
nited States have asserted the honor and the privilege of their 
flag, by the force of reason and of arms. But it was to resist a 
systematic scheme of maritime aggrandizement, which, pre- 
scribing to every other nation the limits of a territorial boun- 
dary, claimed for Great Br. tain the exclusive dominion of the 
seas ; and which, spurning the settled principles of the law of 
war, coadoiuned the ships and mariners of the United States, 
to suiTor, up'in the high seas, and virtually within the jnrisdic- 
ti on of their flag, the most rigorous dispensations of the Bri- 
tish municipal code, inflicted by the coarse and licentious hand 
of a British press gang. 

The injustice of the British claim, and the cruelty of the 
British practice, have tested, for a series of j'ears, the pride and 
the patience of the American government : but, still, every 
exp<iriment was anxiously made, to avoid the last resort of na- 
tions. Tlieclaim of (jreat Britain, in its theory, was linii*ed to 
the right of seeking and impressing its own subject?, on board 
of the merchant vessels of the United States, altliough in fatal 
experience, it has been extended (as already appears) to the sei- 
zure of the subjects of every other power, sailing under a vo- 
luntary contract with the American merchant: to the seizure of 
the natu'-alized citizens of the United States, sailing, also, undef 
volant.ary contracts, which every foreigner, independent of any 
act of naturalization, is at liberty to form in every country :and 
even to the seizure of the native citizens of the United Slates, 
sailing on board the ship? of th 'ir own nation, in the prosecution 
of a lawful commerce. The excuse for what has been unfeel- 
ingly termed, " partial mistakes, and occasional abupe,"^^ when 
the riglit of impT'ssment was practi.sed towards vessels «f the 
United States, is, in the words ofthc Prince Regent's declara- 
tion, " a similarity of language and manners :" but was it not 
known, when tliis excuse was offered to the world, that the 
Prussian, the Swede, the Dane, and the German • tbat the French- 

■f Sec tlicse pa.S3aees m tlie British decl.iration, of the J 0th of Jai\uary, 
1813. 
♦ See the Britiah tkclaration of tiie JOtb of January, 1813. 



15 

man, the Spaniard, and the Portuguese ; nay, that the African 
ajid the Asiatic ; between whom and the people of Great Bri- 
tain there exists no gimilsrity of language, manners, or com- 
plexion ; had been, equally with the American citizen and the 
British subject, the victims of tlje impress tyrannytj If, how- 
ever, the excuse be sincere, if the real object of tlie impress- 
ment be merely to secure to Great Britain, the naval servicefl 
of her own subjects, and not to man her fleets, in every practi- 
cable mode of enlistment, by right or by wrong ; and if a just 
and generous government, professing mutual friendship and res- 
pect, may be presumed to prefer the accnrnplishment, even of a 
legitimate purpose, by means the least afflicting and injurious 
to others, why have the overtures of the United Sutes, offering 
other means as effectual as impressment, for the purpose avow- 
ed, to the consideration and acceptance of Great Britain, been 
forever eluded or rejected? It has been offered, that the num- 
ber of men to be protected by an American vessel, should be 
limited >y her tonnage; that British officers should be permit- 
ted in British ports to enter the vessel, in order to ascertain the 
number of men on board ; and tha% in case of an addition to 
her crcw% the British subjects enhsted should be liable to im- 
pressment J It was offered in the solemn form of a law, that 
the American seamen should be registered ; that they should be 
provided with certificates of citizenshiplf and that the roll of 
the crew of cN-vry vessel should hz formally authenticated.* It 
was offered that no refuge or protection shouhl be given to de- 
serters ; but, that, on the contrary, they should be surrendered.! 
It was " again and again offered to concur in a convention, 
which it was thought practicable to be formed and which should 
settle the question of impressment, in a manner that would be 
safe for England, and sfttisfactory to the United States4 It was 
offered, that each party should prohibit its citizens or subjects, 
from clandestinely concealing or cai'rying away, from the ter* 
ritories or colonies of the other, any seamen belonging to the o- 
ther party. |i!l And, conclusively, it has been offered and declared 
by law, tliat " after thetermination of the presentwar, it should 
not be lawful to employ on board of any of the public or private 



K See the letter of Mr, Pickering', .<?ecretarv of state, to Mr. King, minis- 
tor lit London, of the 26th of Octolier, 17P6, and the letter of Mr. Marshall, 
secretary of state, to Mr. King', of the2'Jth of Sept. 1800. 

§ See the letter of Vir. Jeff'rson, secret.iry of state to Mr. Pinknev, minis- 
ter at Ijo^idon, dated the 11th of June, 1792, and the letter ot Mr". Picker- 
infr, secretary of stite, to Mr. King, minister at London, dated the 8tli of 
June, 17%. 

"ff See tlie act of congress, passed the 28th of May, 179'6. 

* See the letter of Mr Picktring-, secretary of state, to Mr. King, minis" 
ter at London, dated the 8lh of June, 1796. 

•^Sec the project of a treaty on the .subject, between Mr. Pickering, se- 
-retiu-y of state, and Mr. Liston, the British minister at Philadt-lphia, in the 
)tar li>00. 

* See the letter of Mr. Kinsr, minister at London to the secretary of state, 
dated the 15th of Marcli, 1799. 

liJ S«e theletter of Mr. King-, to the secretary of state,- d^ted in Jidy, 1863. 



16 

,v«8seh cf the United States, any persons except citizens of the 
United States ;and that no foreigner should be admitted to be- 
come a citizen hereafter, who liad not for the continued term 
of five years, resided within the United States, without being. 
&t any time; during the five years, out of the territory of the 
United States."} 

It is Hianifest then, that such prorision might be made by 
law ; and that such provision has been repeatedly and urgently 
proposed ; as would, in all future times, exclude from the mari- 
time service cf the United States, both in public and in private 
vessels, every person, who could, possibly, be claimed by Great 
Britain, as a native subject, whether he had, or had not, been 
naturalized in America^ Enforced by the same sanctions and 
securities, which are employed to enforce the penal code of 
Great Britain, as well as the penal code of the United States, 
the provision would afford the strongest evidence, that n» Bri- 
tish subject could be found in service onboard of an American 
vessel ; and, consequently, whatever might be the British right 
of impressment, in the abstract, there would remain no justifia- 
ble motive, there could hardly be invented a plausible pretext, 
to exercise it, at the expense of the American right of lawful 
commerce. If, too, as it has sometimes been insinuated, there 
would, nevertheless, be room for frauds and evasions, it iseuffi- 
cicnt to observe, that the American government would, always 
be ready to hear, and to redress, every just complaint : or, if re- 
dress were sought and refused, ^a preliminary course, that 
ought never to have been omitted, but which Great Britain has 
never pursued,) it would still be in the power of the British go- 
vernment to resort tc its own force, by acts equivalent to war, 
for the reparation of its wrongs. — But Great Britain has, un- 
happily, perceived in the acceptance of the overtures of the A- 
merican government, consequences injurious to her maritime 
policy ; and, therefore, withholds it at the expense of her jus- 
tice. She perceives, perhaps, a loss of the American nursery 
for her seamen, while she is at peace; a loss of the service of 
American crews, while she is at war ; and a loss of many of 
those opportunities, which have enabled her to enrich her navy, 
by the spoils of the American commerce, without exposing her 
own commerce to the risk cf retaliation or reprisals. 

Thus, were the United States, in a season of reputed peace, 
involved in the evils of a state of war; and thus, was the Ame- 
rican flag annoyed by a nation still professing to cherish the 
sentiments of mutual friendship and respect, M'hich had been re- 
cently vouched, by the faith of a solemn treaty. But the A- 
merican government even yet abstained from vindicating its 
rights, aa;l from avenging its wrongs, by an appeal to arms It 
%Viis not an insensibility to those wrongs, nor a dread of British 
power, nor a sOTbservieney to British interests, that prevailed at 

^ See tlie act of congress, passed on the 3il of iMaich. 18! 3. 

<[ 9^e tlie letter of instiirctions fi-om Mr. Monroo, .-^fcretarv pf state, to 
the plcnipotcntiai'Ies for treating of peace with G. Bi'.tain, under the mC" 
diation of the empcroi" Alexander, dated the I5th of Ap) il, 18! 3. 



17 

that'p*rio^,in the councils of the United States: but under all 
trials, the American government abstained from the appeal to 
arms then, as it has repeatedly since done, in its ccllisiuns with 
France, as well as with Great Britain, from the purest love of 
peace, while peace could be rendered compalible with the bon* 
or and independence of the nation. 

During the period winch has hitherto been more particular- 
ly contemplated (from the declaration of hostihties between G. 
Britain and Fiance in the year 1792, untitthe bhort-lived paci- 
fication of the treaty of Amiens in 1802) there were not wan- 
ting occasions, to test the consistency and the impartiality of 
the Amei'ican government, by a comparison of its conduct to« 
wards G. Britain with its conduct towards other nations. The 
manifestations of the extreme jealousy of the French govern- 
ment, and oi the intemperate zeal of its ministers near the U. 
States, were co-eval with the proclamation of neutrality ; but 
after the ratification of the treaty of London, the scene of vio- 
lence, spoliation, and contumely, opened by France, upon the 
U. States, became such, as to admit, perhaps, of no parallel^ 
except in the cotemporaneous scenes which were exhibited by 
the injustice of her great competitor The A merican govern- 
ment acted, in both cases, on the saire pacific policy ; in the 
same spirit of patience and forbearance ; but with the same 
determination also, to assert the honor and independence of 
the nation. When, therefore, every conciliatory effort had 
failed, and when two successive missions -of peace had been 
contemptuously repulsed, the American government, in the 
year 1798, annulled its treaties with France, and waged a ma- 
ritime war against that nation, for the defence of its citizens, 
and of its commerce, passing on the high seas. — But as soon aai» 
the hope was conceived, of a satisfactory change in the disposi- 
tions of the French government, the American government has- 
tened to send another mission to France ; and a convention, 
signed in the year 1800,' terminated the subsisting diiferences 
between the two countries. 

Nor were the United States, able, during the same period, to 
avoid a collision with the government of Spain, up-on many im- 
jKortant and critical questions of boundary and commerce ; of 
Indian warfare, and maritime spoliation. PreiserviDg, l.Qwev- 
er, their system of moderation, in the assertion of their rights, 
» course of amicable discussion and explanation, produced mu- 
tual satisfaction ; and a treaty of friendship, limits, aad navi- 
gation wag formed in the year 1795, by which the citizens of 
the United States acquired, a right, for the space of three years 
to deposit their merchandises and effects in the port of ISew- 
Orleans; with a promise, either that thi enjoyment of that ri^ht 
ehould be indefinitely continued, or that another part of the 
banks of the Mississippi should be assigned for an equivalent 
•stablishment. But, when in the year 1802^the port of New- 
Orleans was abruptly closed against the citizens of the United 
Stutes, without an assignment of any other ec^uivalent place of 



18 

deposit, the harmony of the two countries was again mostse- 
riously endangered ; until the Spanish government, yielding la- 
the reinonstiances of the United States, disavowed the act of 
the intendant of New Orleans, aiid ordered the right of deposite 
to be reinstated, on the terms of the treaty of 1795. 

The elTects produced, even by a temporary suspension of the 
right ofdesposit at JSew Orleans, upon the interests and fee- 
lings of the nation, naturally suggested to the American gO" 
vei'nment, the expediency of guarding against their recurrence, 
by the acquisition of a permanent property in the province of 
Louisiana. The minister of the United States, at lMadrid» 
was, accordingly, instructed to apply to the government of 
Spain upon the subject ; and, on the -ith of May, 1803, he re- 
ceived an answer, stating that " by the retrocession made to 
France, of Ijouisiana, that power regained the province, with 
the limits it had saving the rights acquired by other powers ; 
and that the United States could address themselves to the 
French government, to negociate the acquisition of territories 
which might suit their interest.* But before this reference, 
official infomiation of the same fact had been received by Mr. 
Pinkney from the court of Spain, in the month of March pre- 
ceding ; and the Americi n government, having instituted a 
special mission to negociate the purchase of Louisiana from 
France, or from Spain, whichever should be its sovereign, the 
purchase was, accordingly, accomplished for a valuable consi- 
deration (that was punctually paid) by the treaty concluded at 
Paris on the 30th of April, "^1803. 

The American government has not seen, without some sen- 
sibility, that a transaction, accompanied by such circumstance* 
of general publicity, and of scrupulous good faith, has been de- 
nounced by the prince regent, in his declaration of the 10th 
of January, 1813, as a proof of the " ungenerous conduct" of 
tJie U. States towards Spain.f In amplitication of the royai 
charge, the British negociators at Ghent, have presumed to 
impute the acquisition of Louisiana, by the U. States, to a spi« 
iit of aggrandisement, not necessary to their own security ; 
and to maintain " that the purchase was made against the 
known conditions, on which it had been ceded by Spain to 
France ;"Jthat " in the face of the protestation of the ministep 
of his catholic majesty at Washington, the president of the U. 
States ratified the treaty of purchabe ;='tl and that '"there was 
good reason to believe, that many circumstances attending the 
transaction were industriously concealed."^. The American go- 
vernment cannot condescend to retort aspersions so unjust, ia 
language so opprobrious; and peremptorily rejects the preten- 

• See t!if- Iftt'er from D<in Pedro Cevallos. the rainislei* of Spain, to Mr. C. 
jPinkhcy, the rainlsttr of the Uiiifed Stales, dated the 4th of May, ISOJ, 
t'rcm whicli llie pass.itje cited is liti'i-ally translated. 

I See tlie PriiiCL- Itegent's declaration of tlie lOlh of .Tannary, 18)3. 

t Scathe ):o'.c of the British coftiinib.sioners, dated 4th September ISU. 

!l Sec the note of Ihc I'.ritish cojiiniiisioneis, dated tiie 19th Sept. 1814. 

i Pee the note of the British comnussicners, dated the 8tli of Oct. i81*; 



19 

jion of G. Britain, to interfere in the business of the United 
States and Spain ; but it owes, nevertheless, to the claims of 
truCh,a distinct statement ol tlie fccts which have been thua 
niisiepresenled. When the special mission was appointed to 
negociate tlje purchase of Louisiana from France, in the man- 
ner already mentioued, the American minister, at London, wae 
instructed to explain the object of tlie mission ; and having 
made the explanation, he was assured by the British goveru- 
ment, " that the communicatiou was received in good part ; n« 
doubt was "suggested of the right of the United States tw pursue, 
separately and alone, the objects they aimed at ; but the liritish 
government appeared to be satiblied with tlie president's view 
on this important subject,"* As soon, too, as the treaty of 
purchase was concluded, before hostilities were again actuallj 
commenced between G. Britain and France, anO previously, iru., 
deed, to the departure of the French ambassador tvom London, 
the American minister openly notified to the British govein- 
ment, that a treaty had been signed, " by which the complete 
sovereignty of the town and territory of JNew Orleans, as well 
as of afi Louisiana, as the same was heretofore possessed by 
Spain, had been acquired by the U. States of America , and 
that in drawing up the treaty, care had been taken so to frame 
the same, as not to infringe any right of G. Britain, in the na- 
vigation of the river ISlissis&ippi.''! In the answer of the Bri- 
tish government, it was explicitly declared by lord Hawkesbury, 
" that he had received his majesty's commands to express the 
pleasure with which his majesty had received the iiitelligence ; 
and to add. that his majesty regarded the care, which had 
been taken so to frame the treaty as not to infringe any right 
of G^ Britain in the navigation of the Mississippi, as the most 
satisfactory evidence of a disposition on the part of the govern- 
ment of the U. States, correspondent with that which his ma- 
jesty entertained, to promote and improve that harmony, which 
so happily subsi.-ted between thetwo countries, and whicii was 
so conducive to their mutual benefit.-'^^ The world will judge, 
whether, under such circumstances, the British governmeiithad 
any cause, on its own account, to arraign the conduct of the U. 
States, inmaking the purchase of Louisiana ; and, certainly, no 
greater cause will be found for the airaignment, on account of 
Spain. The Spanisii government was apprized of the intenti- 
on of the U. States to negociate for the purchase of that pro- 
vince ; its ambassador witnessed the progress of the negociaiion 
at Pari.s; and the conclusion of the treaty, on the ^Oth of April- 
1 803, was promptly known and understood at Madrid. Yet^the 

*See the letter from the secretary of state, to Mr. King-, the Arr.cricaR 
minister £.t Lonjdoii, dated the 29Lh of Janunrv, 180^^ ; ai d Mr. liingi's kt- 
te)- to the secietary uf stale, dtited the 2bth of .April, 18t'o." 

•f See tlie letter of Mr. King-, to lord Hawkesbury, dated the IStls of May. 
1803. '•^* 

+ See ti e letter of lord Hawkesburjj^to Mr. King^ dated the ^ih of May, 
1803- 

B2 



20 

Spanish government interposed no olijection, no protestation 
against the transaction, in Europe; and it was not until the 
month of September, 1803, that the American government 
heard, with surprize, from the minister of Spain, at Washing- 
ton, that his catholic majesty was dissatisfied with the cession 
of Louisfana to the U. States. Notwithstanding this diplomatic 
jemonstrance, however, the Spanish government proceeded to 
deliver the possession of Louisiana to France, in execution of 
the treaty of St. Ildefonso ; saw France, by an almost simulta- 
neous act, transfer the possession to the U. States, in execution 
ef the treaty of purchase ; and, finally, instructed the marquis 
de Casa Ynijo, to present to the American government, the de- 
"claration of the 15th May, 1804, acting "by the special order of 
his sovereign,"" " that the explanations, which the government 
of France had given to his catholic majesty, concerning the sale 
©f Louisiana to the United States, and the amicable dispositions, 
on the part of the king, his master, towards these states, had 
determined him to abandon the opposition, which, at a prior 
.'period, and with the most substantial motives, he had manifest* 
ed against the transaction "|1 

But after this amicable and decisive arrangement of all differ- 
ences, in relation to the validity of the Louisiana purchase, a 
question of some Mnbarrassment remained, in relation the boun* 
daries of the ceded territory. This question however the A me* 
rican government always has been, and always will be, willing 
to discuss, in the most candid manner, and to settle upon the 
most liberal basis, v»dth the government of Spain. It was not., 
therefore, a fair topic, with which to inflaime the Prince Re- 

fenfs declaration ; or to embellish the diplomatic notes of the 
ritish negociators at Ghent. $ The period has arrived, when 
Spain, relieved from her European labors, may be expected to 
bestow her attention, more effectually upon the state of her co- 
lonics ; and, acting with the wisdom justice and magnanimity, 
•f which she has given frequent examples, she will find no dif- 
ficulty, in meeting the recent advances of the American gov- 
ernment, for an honorable adjustment of every point in contro- 
versy between the two countries, without seeking the aid of 
British mediation, or adopting the animosity of British coun- 
cils. 

Bat still the United States fueling a constant interest in the 
epinion of enlightened and impartial nations, cannot hesitate to 
embrace the opportunity, for representing in the simplicity of 
truth, the events, by which they have been led to take pos.ses- 
sion of a part of the Floridas, notwithstanding the claim of 
Spain to the sovereignty of the same territory. In the accep- 
tation nnd understanding of the United States, the cession of 
Louisiana, embraced the country south of the Mississippi terri- 



!| See the letter of the marquis de Casa Yriijo, te tlie American secretary 
«f st:ite, dfUed tlie l5i!i of May, 1804. 

^ Sre the prince regent's declaration of the 16th of ,T:inti.'»ry. 181 «. Sto the 
notes of thfc Britiak coniraiesionerfc-, Uattd 19ih September, 8; h October, 1S14 



21 

tory, ftn3 eastward of the river Mississippi, anc! e^fenditig to thft 
river Perdido ; but " thei'* conciliatoiy views, and their confi- 
dence in tlie justice of thcii* cause, and in the suc<es8 of a 
candid discussion and amicable negociation with a jusi anc! fiiend- 
\y' power, induced them to acquiesce in the temporary con- 
tinuance of that territory under tbe Spanish authoi ity " % 
—When, however, the adjustment of the boundaries of Lou- 
isiana, as- well as a reasonable indemnification, on account of 
maritime spoliations, and the suspension of the tight of deposit 
at New Orleans, seemed to be indilinitely postponed, on tliC part 
©f Spain, by events which the United States had not contribu- 
ted to produce, and could not control ; when a crisis had aniv- 
ed subversive of the order of things under the Spanish authori- 
ties, contravening the views of both parties, and endangering the 
tranquility and security of the adjoining territories, by the in- 
trusive establishment of a government, independent of Spain, 
as well as of the United States ; and when at a later period, 
there was reason to believe, that Great Britain herself design^ 
ed to occupy the Floridas, (and she has, indeed, actually occu- 
pied Pensacola, for hostile purposes,) the American govern- 
ment, without departing from its respect for the rights of Spain 
and even consulting the honor of that state, unequal as she then 
was, to the task of suppressing the intrusive establishment, wag 
impelled bj' the paramount principle of self preservation, to les- 
cue its iwn rights from the impending danger. Hence the U- 
jnited States in the year 1810, proceeding step ly step, accor- 
ding to the growing exigencies of the time, took possession of the 
country, in which the standard of independence had been dis- 
played, exceptirtg. such places as were held by a Spanish force, 
In the year 1811, they authorised their president, by law, provi- 
aionaliy to accept of the possession of East Florida from the 
local authorities, or to pre occupy it agjrfn.st the attempt of a 
foreign power to seize it. In 1813, they obtained f he possession 
©f Mobile, the only place then held by a Spanish force in West 
Florida; with a view to their own immediate security, but with- 
out varying the questions depending between them and Spain, io: 
relatioD to that provin.e. Andin theyear 1814 the American com- 
mander, acting under the sanction of the law of nations, but 
unauthorised by the orders of his government, drove from Pen- 
sacolathe British troops, who, in violation if the neural territory 
•f Spain, (a violation which Spain it is believed must herself re- 
sent, and would have TeBi.«ited, if the opportunity had occuried,) 
*eized and fortified that station, to aid in military operations 
agaitist the United States. But all these measures of safety 
and neces.sity were frankly explained, as they occured, to the 
frovernment of Spain, and even to the government of Great 
Britain, antecedently to the declaration of war, with the sin- 
eerest assurances, that the possession of the territory thus ao- 

1[See the proclaniation of the presklentof the United States, authorizing 
fovernor Claiborne to takfl possession of the ttrritory, dated the ?rth of Oc- 
tober, 1810. 



qufred, " should not cease to be a subject of fair and friendly 
neguciation and adjustment ''* 

'I'he pre!«ent review of the conduct of the United States to- 
wards the belligei'ent powers of Europe, will be regarded by e- 
very candid mind, as a necesbary medium to vindicate their na- 
tional character from the unmerited imputations of the prioce 
regent's declaration of the lOth January, lbl3, and not as a me- 
dium, voluntarily assumed, according to the insinuations of that 
declaration, for the revival of unvoj'thy prejudices, or vindict- 
ive passions, in reference to transactions tliat are past. The 
treaty of Amiens, which seemed to terminate the war in jfiu- 
rope, seemed also to terminate the neutral sufferings of Ame- 
rica ; but the hope of repose was, in both respects, delusive and 
transient. The hostilities which were renewed between Great 
Britain and France, in the year 1793, wereiaimediately follow- 
ed by a renew al of the aggressions of the belligerent powers 
upon the commercial rights and political independence of the 
United States. There was scarcely, therefore, an interval s&- 
parating the aggressions of the first war from the aggressions 
of the second war; and although, in nature, the aggressions 
continued to be the same, in extent^ they became incalcyiably 
more destructive. It will be seen, however, that the Auierican 
government inilexibly maintained its neutral and pacific policy^ 
in every extremity of the latter trial, -.vith the same good faith 
and forbearance that, in the former trial, had distinguished its 
conduct; until it was compelled to choose from the alternative 
of national degradation or national resistance And if Great 
Britain alone then became tiie object of the American declara- 
tion of war, it will be seen, that Great Bi-itain alone had obsti- 
nately closed the doer of amicable negociation.- 

The American minister at Louden, anticipating the rupture 
between Great Britdn and France, had obtained assurances 
from the British government, '"that, in the event of war, the 
instructions given to their naval officers should be drawn up 
with plainness and precision; and, in genera!, t.hat the rights of 
belligerents should be exercised in moderation, and with due 
respect for those of neut; als."f And in ?-e!atTon to the import- 
ant subject of impressment, he had actually prepared for signa- 
ture, with the assent of lord Hawkesbury and lord St. Vincent, 
a convention, to continue during hve years, declaring that " no 
seaman nor seafaring person, should, upon the high seas, and 

• Sec- the letter from the secretary of state to governor Claiborne, and the 
proclamation, (luted the '^7th of <)ct()fx:r, 1810. 

See the proceedings of the convention of Florida, transmitted to the secre- 
tary of state, by the ffovemor of the Mississmj)! teiiitorv, in his ktter of 
tht I7tli of October, 1810 .- and the answer of the .secretny of state, dated 
the )5th of Is'ovt n^her, IP10: 

See the lottf-r of \\r. Morier, British chargfe d'affaires, to the socrctarj- of 
Stiite, dated the lith of Dec 1810; and tiic secretary's answer: 

.See the corri"iponden<-e between .>lr. Alonroe, ami .Mr. Fobter, the Britiili 
■ninibter, ir, llie niontlisof .July, September, and Xovtmbcr, 181]. 

j See »!ie letter of Mr. Kui^-, to the arcrtr'ary of sUile, dattd C: I'''.h of 
]yi;>, 1803. 



25; 

wlthoutthe jurisd'ction of either party, be demanded or t^k'on* 
out of any ship or vessel, belonging to the citizens or bubject* 
Oi' one of the parties, by the public or private armed 
shipsj or men of war, belonging to or in the service of the 
ot'ner party ; and that strict orders ehould be given for 
the due observance of the engage ment;'t- This convention, 
wliich explicitly relinquished impressments from American vea- 
Bele, on the high seas, and to which the British ministers had, 
at first, agreed, lord St. Vincent was desirous afterwards to mo- 
dify, " stating, that on further reliection, he was of opinion, 
that the narrow seas should be expressly excepted, they hav- 
ing been, as his lordship remarked, imniernorially considered- 
to be within the dominion of Great Britain." The American 
jninister, however, "having supposed, from the tenor of his- 
conversations with lord St. Vincent, that the doctrine of viare 
clau&um would not be revived against the United States on this 
occasion; but that England would be content with the limiied 
jurisdiction or dominion over the seas adjacent to her territo- 
ries, which is assigned by the law of nations to other states, 
was disappointed, on receiving lord St. Vincent's communiea- 
^on and chose rather to abandon the negociation than to ac- 
quiesce in the doctrine it proposed to establish/'H But it was 
still some satisfaction to receive a formal declaration from th& 
British government, communicated by its minister at Wash- 
ington, after the recommencement of the war in Europe, which 
promised in effect, to reinstate the practice of naval blockades 
upon the principles of the law of nations ; so that no blockade 
should be considered as existing, " unless in respect of particu- 
lar norts, which might be actually invested, and then that the 
vessels bound to such ports should not be captured, unless they. 
had previously been warned not to enter them "*~ 

AlKhe precautions of the American government were, never- 
theless, ineffectual, and the assurances of the British government- 
were, in no instance, verified. The outrage of impressment waS' 
again indiscriminately perpetrated upon the crew of every A' 
laerican vessel, and on every sea. The enorm'ty of blockades- 
established by an order in council, without a legitimate object,, 
and maintained by an order in council, without the application*. 
of a camp?tent force, was, more and more developed. The' 
rule, denominated " the rule of the war of 1750" was revived 
in an affected style of modei*ation, bat in a spirit of more ri- 
gorous execution! The lives, the liberty, the fortunes and 
the happines of the citizens of the United State?, engaged 5:1 
the pursuits of navigation and commerce, were once more sub- 



? .See the letter of Mr. King", to the secretary of state, dated. July 1803. 

^ Ste the letter of Mr. King, to the secretary of state, dii'ed .July, 18<'>3, 

* See t!ie letter of .Mr. Merry, to the secretiiry of statt, dated tlie 12th of 
April, ISUi, :i'K.l thp enclosed copy or a leuer from Mr. Ncpean, ihe s<-cre>- 
tary of the adairalty, to .Mr ILmimoiid, tlic British under s*cret.i!j- of state 
for forcig-n ati".ih's, dated Jan. 5, 1804. 

t See the or Jcr.? in council of tlie '2 idi Tune, IsOJ, and the 17th of Au^. 
1805. 



24' 

jected t6 the violence and cupidity of the Brithh cruizers. An5" 
in biiet, 80 grievous, so intoleriible, had tlie affliction of the 
nation become, that the peopl*^, with one mind, and one voicc^ 
called loudly upon t leir government, for redress and protec- 
tion -.X the congress of the United Stat-.'s, participating in the 
feelings and regentnrents of the time, urged upon the execu- 
tive mig'strate, tlie necessity of an immediatevdemand of repa- 
ration from Gr^'at Britain ;|| while the same patriotic spirit 
Vi'hich opposed British usurpation in 17^3, and encountered 
French hostility in 1798, was again pledged in every variety of 
form, to the maintainance of the national honor and indepen- 
dence daring the more arduous trial that arose in 1805. 

Amidst these scenes of injustice on the one hand, and of re- 
clamation on the other, the American government preserved 
its equanimity and its firmness. It beheld much in the con- 
duct of France and of her ally Spain to provoke reprisals. It be- 
held more in the conduct of Great Britain, that led, unavoida- 
bly (as^had often been avowed) to the last resort of arms. It 
beheld in the temper of the nation, all that was requisite to 
Justify an immediate selection of Great Britain, as the object 
®t' a de ilaration of war. And it could not but behold in the 
policy of France, the strongest motive to acquire the United 
States, as an associate in tiie existing conflict. Yet these con- 
siderations did not then, more than at any former crisis, sub- 
due the fortitude, or mislead the judgment of the American 
government ; but in perfect consistency with its neutral, as 
well as its pacitic system, it demanded attonement, by remon- 
strances witli France and Spain ; and it sought the preserva-- 
tion of peace, by negociation with Great Britain. 

It has been shown, that a treaty proposed, emphatically, by 
the British minister resident at Philadelphia, '' ae the means of 
drying up every source of complaint and irration, upon the head 
of impresment,'' was deemed uUerly inadmissible," by the A- 
merican government, because it didnot sufficiently provide for" 
that object.^ It has, also, been shov/n, that another treaty, pro- 
posed by the .American minister at L.ondon, was laid aside be- 
cause the British government, wiiile it was willing to relin- 
quish, expressly, impressments from American vessels, on the 
hi-'h seas, insisted upon an exception, in reference to the nar- 
row seas claimed as part of the British dominion; and experi- 
ence demonstrated, that, although the spoliations committed 
upon the Am^^rican commerce, might admit of reparation^ by 
the payment of a pecuniary equivalent: yet, consulting th& 

t .See the memorials of Bos'on Ncw-Ynrk, !»hi1adelphiaj Baltimore, Stc 
-pT^scn'. a to congress in the end of .he 3 ear 18^)5, and the beginning of the 
year 1808. 

II .S.o the resolutioiis of the spnate of ihf TTnited Stales, of the lOih and 
I4J1 of Febviiaiy, 1806; and the resoluii^kn of the bouse of representulives 
O" lie United Sta'es. 

% -ee Mr. I. s on's l^tt.-r t > the secre'r.ry of state, da(e<l tlie 4th of Febru- 
ar/, 1800; an 1 the le ler .>f Mr. Pirke.ii-.fC, si'cretury of st:ae,to the Presi- 
dent of the United Stales, dUcd the2-JUiof February, 1800. 



t5 

feonor and the feelings of the nation, it wm impoawble to receive 
»atisfaction for the cruelties of imprcsament, by any other 
means, tham by an entire disaontinuance of the practice. \V hen 
therefore the cnvoya extraordinary were appointed in the year 
1806, tonegociate with the British government, every authority 
was given, for the purposes of conciliation 4 nay, an act of con- 
gress, prohibiting the importation of certain articles of British 
manufacture into tlie United States, was suspended, in proof 
of a friendly disposition ;! but it was declared, that " the sup- 
pression of impressment, and the definition of blockades, wefe 
absolutely indispensable ;" and that, "without a provision a- 
gainst impressments, no treaty should be concluded.'* The A- 
merican envoys, accordingly, took care to communicate to the 
British commissioners, the limitations of tbeir powers. Influ- 
enced, at the same time, by «. smcere desire to terminate the 
differences between the two nations ; knowing the solicitude of 
their government, to relieve its seafaiing citizens fi-om actual 
sufferance ; hstening, with confidence, to assurances and expla- 
nations of the British commissioners in a sense favorable ta 
their wishes; and judging from a state of information, thM; 
gave no immediate cause to doubt the sufficiency of those as- 
surances and explanations^, the envoys, rather than terminate 
the negociation without any arrangement, wet-e willing to rely 
upon the efficacy of a substitute, for a positive article in tlie 
treaty, to be submitted to the consideration of their government, 
as this, according to the declation of the British commissioners, 
was the only arrangement, they were pei-mitted, at that time, 
to propose, or t<» allow. The substitute was presented in Ihe 
form of a note from the British commissioners to the Ameri- 
can envoys, and contained a pledge, '- that instructions had beeti 
given, and should be repeated and enforced, for the observance 
of the greatest caution in the impressing of British seamen; 
that the strictest care should be taken to preserve the citizens 
of the United States from any molestation or injury ; and that 
immediate and prompt redress should be afforded, upon any 
representation of injury sustained by them."* 

Inasmuch, however as the treaty contained no provision a» 
gainst impressment, and it was seen by the government, whet 
the treaty was under consideration for ratification, that the 
pledge contained in the substitute was not complied with, but, 
on the contrary, that the impressments were continued, with 
undiminished violence, in the American seas, so long after the 
a.neged date of the instructions, which were to arrest them ; 
that the practical inefficacy of the substitute could'not be doubt- 
ed by the government here, the ratification of the treaty was 
Bccessarily declined; and it has since appeared, that after a 
change in the British ministry had taken place, it was declar- 
ed by the secretiiry for foreign affairs, that no engagements were 

fl See the act of congress, passed the I8th of April, 1806 ; and the act 
suspending it, passed the 19th of Deceiriber, 18C6. 
* Se« the rxite of ^c Bjriti«h c«imnisBi«nejrs, d*tei the 8th of Nov. 1806, 
C 



2d 

entered into, on th« part of his majesty, as connected with the 
treaty, except such as appear upon the face of it.» 

The American government, however, with unabating solici- 
tade for peace, urged an ifnmediate renewal of the negociationff 
on the basis of the abortive treaty, until this course was pe- 
remptorily declared, by the British government, to be "wholly 
7nadniis§ible."t 

But, iiidependent of the silence of the proposed treaty, upon 
the great topic of American complaint, and of the view which 
has been taken of the projected substitute ; the coDtempora- 
ncoas declaration of the British commissioners, delivered by 
the command of their sovereign, and to which the American 
envoys refused to make themselves a party, or to give the 
slightest degree of sanction, was regarded by the American go- 
vernment, as ample cause of rejection. In reference to the 
French decree, which had. been issed at Berlin, on the 21st of 
November, 1806, it was declared that if France should carry 
the throats of th^it decree into execution, and, if "neutral na- 
tions, contrary to all expectation, should acquiesce in such usur- 
pations, his majesty might probably be compelled, however re- 
luctantly, to retaliate, in his just defence, and to adopt, in re- 
regard to the commerce of neutral nations with his enemies, 
the same measures, which those nations should have permitted 
to be enforced, against their commerce with his subjects :" " that 
his majefty could not enter into the stipulations of the present 
treaty, v?ithout an explanation frem the United States of their 
intentions, or a reservation en the part of his majesty, in the 
case above mentioned, if it should even occur," and " that with- 
out a formal abandonment, or tacit relinquishment of the un- 
just pretensions of France, or without sueh conduct and assur- 
ances upon the part of the U. States, as should give security 
to his majesty that they would not submit to the French inno- 
vations, in the established system of maritime law, his majes- 
ty would not consider himself bound by the present signature of 
his commissioners to ratify the treaty, or precluded from adopt- 
in» such measures as might seem neccssai'y for countei-acting 
,the designs of the enemy ."f 

The reservation of a power to invalidate a solemn treatj', at 
the pleasure of one of tlie parties, and the menace of inflicting 
punishment upon the United States for the offences of another 
nation, proved, in the event, a prelude to the scenes of violence 
which Great Britain was then about to display, and which it 
wuuH have been improper for the Ameiican negociators to an- 
ticipate. For, if a commentary were wanting to explain the real , 
deoign of sach conduct, it would be found in the fact, that with- 
in oiyjhtdays from the date of the treaty, and before it was pos- 
aible'for the British government to have known the effect of 

• Sec Mr. Canninff's letter to tlie American envoys, dated 27ih October, 
1807. 

f See the same letter, , 

» Sec the note of the British commissioners, dated tJieSl.t of December 
1806, See *lso Uie answer of Messrs. Monroe and Pinknsy to the saiae. 



2:7 

the Berlin decree on tlie American government ; nay, even be- 
'fore the American government had itself heard of that decree, 
the desti'uction of American commerce was commenced by the 
order in council of the 7th January, 1807, whicU aunouiiced, 
*that no vessel should be permitted to trade from one port to 
another, both which ports should belong to, or be in possession of 
France, or her allies; or should be so far under their control, 
as that British vessels might not trade freely thereat."^ 

During tha whole period of this negociation which did not 
finally close until the British Government declared, in the 
month of October, 1807, that negociation was no longer admis- 
gible, the course pursued by the British squadron, stationed 
more immediately on the American coast, was in the extreme, 
vexatious, predatory and hostile. The territorial jurisdiction 
of the United States, extending, upon the principles of the law 
of nations, at least a league over the adjacent ocean, was total- 
ly disregarded and contemned. Vessels employed in the coast- 
ing trade, or in the business of the pilot and Usherman, were 
objects of incessant violence ; their petty cargoes were plunder- 
ad ; and eome of their scanty crews were often either impress- 
ed, or wounded, or killed, by the force of British frigates. Brit- 
ish ships of war hovered, in warlike display, upon the coast ; 
blockaded the ports of the United States, so that no vessel 
could enter or depart in safety ; penetrated the bays and rivers 
»nd even anchored in the harbors of the -United States, to exer- 
cise a jurisdiction of impressnient ; threatened the towns and 
villages with conflagration, and wantonly discharged musket- 
ry, as well as cannon, upon the inhabitants of an open and ua^ 
protected country. The neutrality of the American territory 
waa violated on every occasion ; and, at last, the American go* 
vernment was doomed to suffer the greatest indignity which 
could be offered to a soverign and independent nation, in the 
*ver memorable attack of a British 5\) gun ship, under the 
countenarsce of the British squadron, anchored within the wa- 
iters of the United States, upon the frigate Chesapeake, peacea' 
bly prosecuting a distant voynge. The British government af- 
fected from time to time to difrapprove and condemn these out" 
rages; but the officer.s who perpetrated them were generally 
applauded ; if tried, they were acquitted ; if remeved from thf- 
American station, it was only to be promoted in another sta^ 
tion ; and if attonement were offered, as in the flagrant in- 
stance of the frigate Chesapeake, the atonement was so ungra- 
cious in the manner, and so tardy in the result, as to beti-ay 
the want of that conciliatory spirit which ought to have char^ 
acterizedit.* 



§ See the ordei- in council of January 7, i 807. 

* See the evidence of these fr>cts reporttd'lo contjress in November 180ci. 

See the c^ocuments respecting capt. Love, of the'Urlverjc.iptian \\ hitby, 
of the Ijccuider, and capt&in 

See also the correspondence respeclinp tlie frigate'Cbcsapeake, with Mr. 
Canning at London ; with Mr. Hose at Washington ; with Mi*. Erskint^at 
'Washington i ar4 witij . . ,. . ' 



«8 

Bat the Atn*riei,Ti government, goothing the exMper&te4 
•pirit of the people, by a proclamation, which interdicted the 
■entrance of all British armed vessels, into the harbours ani 
water of the United States,f neither oommenced hostilities a- 
gainst Great Britain ; nor sought a defensive alliance with 
France ; nor relaxed in its firm but conciliatory efforts to en- 
force the claims of justice upon the honor of both nations. 

The rival ambition of Great Britain and France, now, hoTf- 
ever, approached the consummation, which, involving the de- 
■truction of all neutral rights, upon an avowed principle of ac> 
tion, could not fail to render an actual state of war, compara-> 
lively, more safe, and more prosperous, than the imaginary 
state of peace, to which neutrals were reduced. The just and 
impartial conduct of a neutral nation, ceased to be its shield 
and its safeguard, when the conduct of the belligerent powers 
towards each other, became the only criterion of the law of 
war. The wrong committed by one of the belligerent powers, 
was thus made the signal for the perpetration of a greater 
wrong by the other; and if the American government com- 
plained to both powers, their answer, although it never denied 
the causes of complaint, invariably retorted an idle and offen- 
ftive inquiry, into the priority of their respective aggressions; 
or each demanded a course of resistance against its antagonist, 
which was calculated to prostrate the American right of self-go- 
vernment, and coerce the United States, against their interest 
and their policy into becoming an associate in the war. But 
the American government never did, and never can, admit, that 
a belligerent power, " in taking steps to i-estrain the violence 
of its enemy, and to retort upon them the evils of their own in- 
Justice,":f is entitled to disturb and destroy, the rights of a neu- 
tral power, as recogni'zed and established, by the law of na- 
tions. It was impossible indeed, that the real features of the 
miscalled retalliatory system should be long masked from the 
world ; when Great Britain, even in her acts of professed re- 
taliiatioi^ de 'lared that France was unable to execute the hos- 
tile denunciations of her decrees ;ll and when Great Britain 
herself, unblushingly, entered into the same commerce with her 
enemy (through the medium of forgeries, |>erjurlcs and licen- 
ces) from which she had interdicted unoffending neutrals. — 
The pride of naval superiority ; and the cravings of commer- 
oial n>onapoly ; gave after all, the impulse and direction to the 
councils of the British cabinet; while the vast although vision- 
ary, projects of France, furnished occasions and pretests, for 
accomplishing the objects of those councils. 

The British minister, resident at Washington, in the year 
wot, having distinctly recognized, in the name of his sover- 
eign, the legitimate principles of blockade, the American go- 
vernment received) with some surprise and solieilude, the euo- 



f Set' the proeliunation of the 2nd of July, 180jr. 
^ vSec tt»« onlcr.i in council of the /th of January, ISOJ^C 
1 3c« tht orderii la cwaciief ti^ 7th of Januar^i 1907> 



29 

ccusive tiotlficatiotis of the 9th of August, ISM, the 8th of A- 
pril, 1806, and move pavlicularly, of the loth of May, 1806, an- 
fiouncing, by the last notification, "a blockade, of the coast, ri- 
vers, and porti», from the river Elbe to the port of Brest, both 
inclusive."^ In none of the notified instances of blockade, were 
the principles, that had been recognized in lh04, adopted and 
pursued, and it will be recollected by all Europe, that neither 
at the time of the notitication, of the loth of May, 1806, ; nor 
at the time of excepting the Elbe and Ems, from the opera- 
tion of that notification ;1[ nor at any time, during the contin- 
uance of the French war, was there an adequate naval force. 
actually applied by Great Britain, for the purpose of maintain- 
ing a blockade from the river Elbe, to the port of Brest. It 
was then m the language of the day, " a mere paper blockade" 
a manifest infraction of the law of nations ; and an act of pecu- 
liar injustice, to the United States, as the only neutral power,- 
{igainst which it would practically operate. But whatever may 
have been the sense of the American government on the occa- 
sion; and whatever might be the disposition, to avoid making 
this the ground of an open rupture with Great Britain, thd 
case assumed a character of the highest interest, when, inde- 
pendent of its own injurious consequences, France in the Ber- 
lin decree of the 21st of November, 1806, recited, as a chief 
cause for placing the British islands in a state of blockade, 
*' that Great Britain declares block-ucu, placre brfove which 
ahe has nota single vessel of war; and even places which Ler 
tlnited fo''ces would be incapable of blockading ; such as entire 
coasts, and a whole empire: an unequalled abuse of the right of 
blockade, that had no other object, than to interrupt the ccmniu- 
nications of different nations; and to extend the commerce and 
industry of England, upon the ruin of those nations."* The 
American governiftent aims not, and never has aimed, at the 
justification, either of Great Britain, or ef France, in their ca- 
reer of crimination and recrimination : but it is of some iropoT- 
tance to observe, that if the blockade of May, 1806, was an 
unlavpful blockade, and if the right of retaliation arose with 
the first unlawful attack, made by a belligerent power upon 
neutral rights, Great Britain has yet to answer to mankind, 
according to the rule of her own acknowledgment, for all the 
calamities of the retaliatory warfare. France, whether right or 
wrong, made the British system of blockade, the foundation of 
the Berlin dacree ; and France had an equal right with Great 
Britain, to demand from the United States, an opposition to e- 
very encroachment upon the privileges of the neutral charac- 
ter. It is enough, however, on the present occasion, for the A- 
merican government, to observe, that it possessed no power to 
prevent the framing of the Berlin decree, and to disclaim any 

§ See Lord Harrowb) 's note to Mr. Mum oe, dated the 9th of A»igust, 
1&04, and Mr, Fox's notes to Mr. Munroe, dated respectively the 8th of A- 
j^ril, and tiie 16th of IVIay, 1806. ,^ 

% SeeLtiid Howick's note to Mr. Mnnroe, dated the 25th of Sept. 1806. 
. * S«« tlie Berlin decree of the 21st of November, 1806, 



30 

approbation of its principles, or acquiescence in its opcrationsr 
for, it neither belonged to Great Britain, nor to France, to pre- 
scribe to the American government, the time, or the mode, 
or the degree, of resistance, to tlie indignities, and the outra- 
ges, with which each of those nations, in its turn, assailed the 
United States. 

liut it has been sTiown, that after the British government 
f06ses«ed a knowledge of the existence of the Berlin decree, it 
authorized th« conclusion of the treaty witli the United States, 
whicli was signrd at liOndon. on the .'Jlst of December, 1806, 
reserving to itself a power of annulling the treaty, if F'rance 
did not revoke, or if the United States, as a neutral power, did 
not resist, the obnoxious measure. It has, also, been shown, 
that before Great Britain could possibly ascertain, the deter- 
mination of the United States, in relation to the Berlin decree, 
the orders in council of the 7th of January, 1807, were issued, 
professing to be a retaliation against France, " at a time when 
the fleets of France and her allies were themselves confined 
within their own ports, by the superior valor and disci])line of 
tlie British navy."f but operating, in fact, against the United ' 
Stales, as a neutral power, to prohibit their trade *' from one 
jfort to aiicrthor, both which ports should belong to, or be in 
the possession of, France or her allies, or should be so far un- 
der their control, as that British vessels might not trade freely 
thereat. "f It remains, however, to be stated, that it was not 
until the 12th of March, 1807, that th» Brititih minister, thea 
residing at Washington, communicated to the American gov- 
ernment, in the- name of his sovereign, the orders in council 
of January, 1807, with an intimation, that stronger measures 
•would be pursued, unless the United States should resist the o- 
per^tions of the Berlin decree.:]: At the moment the British go- 
vernment was reminded, " that within the period of those great 
events, which continued to agitate Europe, instances had occur- 
Tcd, in which the commerce of neutral nations, more especially 
of the United States, had experienced the severest distresses 
from its own orders and measures, manifestly unauthorized by the 
law of nations," assurances were given, " that no culpable acqui- 
oflccnce en the part of the United States would render them ac- 
oessarv to the proceedings of one belligerent nation, through 
their rightsof neutrality, against the commerce of its adversa- 
ry ;" and the nght of Great Britain to issue such orders, unless 
as orders of blockade, to be enforced according to the law of na- 
tions, was utterly denied. || 

This candid and explicit avowal of the sentiments of the A- 
merican government, upon an occasion so novel and important 
in the history of nations, did not, however, make its just im- 



f See the order in council of the 7ih January 1807. 

< See Mr F.ibkinc's letter to tlie Sccittary of «talc, dated the 12th of 
Llaroh, 1^07. , ,,.„„,.- 

II Sec the secretary of state's letter to Mr. Erskine, dated the ZOth eJ 
March, ISOJk 



31 

CTCsaion npon the British cahinct ; for, without assigning any 
new provocation on the part of France, and complaining, mere^ 
ly, that neutral powers had not been induced to interpose, with 
efl'Vct, to obtain a revocation of the Berlin decree, (which, howe- 
ver, Great Britain herself had affirmed to be a decree nominal 
and inoperative) the orders in council of the lith of November 
1807, were issued, declai-ing, "that all the ports and places of 
France and lier ullies, or of aiiy oilier country at war with hi» 
majesty, and all other ports or places in Europe, from which, al- 
though not at war with higinajesty, the British flag was exclud- 
ed, and all ports or places in the colonies belonging to his 
majesty's enemies, should, from thenceforth, be subject to the 
same restrictions, in point of trad^ and navigation, as if the 
same were actually blockaded by his majesty's naval forces, in 
the most strict and rigorous manner:" that "all trade in arti- 
cles which were the produce or manufacture ol' the said coun- 
tries or colonies, should be deemed and considered to be unlaw- 
ful ;" but that neutral vessels should still be permitted to trade 
with Fi-ance from certain free ports, or through ports and pla- 
ces of the British dominions ^ To accept the lawful enjoyment 
©f a right as the grant of a superior ; to prosecute a lawful 
commerce, under the forms of favor and indulgence ; and to 
pay a tribute to Great Britain for the privilege of a lawful tran- 
sit on the ocean; w€re concessions which Great Britain was 
disposed, insidiously, to exact, by an appeal to the cupidity c^ 
individuals, but which the United States could never \it:ld, con- 
sistently with the independence and sovereignty of the nation. 
The orders in council were, therefore, altered, in this respect. 
tt a subsequent period ;ir but the general interdict of neutral 
commerce, applying more especially to American commerce, 
tras obstinately maintained against all the force of reason, of 
remonstrance, and of protestation, employed by the American 
government, when the subject was presented to its considera- 
tion by the British minister residing at Washington. The fact 
assumed as the basis of the orders in council was unequivocally 
disowned ; and it was demonstrated, that so far from its being 
true " that the United States had acquiesced in the illegal o- 
peration of the. Berlin decree, it was not even true that at the 
date of the British orders of the Uth of November, 1807, a 
single application of that decree to the oommerce of the Unit- 
ed States, on the high seas, could have been known to the jElri- 
tish government;'' while the British government had been offi- 
cially informed by the American minister at liondou, " that 
explanations, uncontradicted by any overt act, had been givei* 
to the American minister at Paris, which justified a reliance 
that the French decree would not be put in force against the 
United States."* 

§ See the orders in council of the TIth of November, 1807. 
jf See Mr. Canning's letter lo Mr.Pinknfv, 23d of February, 1808. 
• See Mr. Erskine's letter to the secretary of .state, dated 22nd of Febru- 
ary, 1808; and the answer of the secretary of stale, dated 25lhof Marchj 



S2; 

The British orders of the 11th of November, 1S07, s/er^ 
j^ickly followed by the French decree of Milan, dated the 
17th of December, 1807, *• which was said to be resorted to', 
only in just retaliation of the barbarous system adopted by 
England," and in which the denationalizing tendency of the 
orders, is made the foundation of a diclaration in the decree, 
•* that every ship to whatever nation it might belong, that should 
have submitted to be searched by an English ship, or to a voy- 
age to England, or should have paid any tax whatsoever to the 
English government, was thereby, and for that alone, declared 
to be denationalized, to have forfeited the protection of its sova- 
Teign, and to have become English property, subject to cap- 
ture as good and lawful prize: that the British Islands were 
placed in a state of blockade, both by sea and land — and every 
«hip, of whatever nation, or whatever the nature of its cargo 
might be, that sails from ports of England, or those of the En- 
glish colonies, and of the countries occupied by English troops, 
and proceeding to England, or to the English colonies, or to 
countries occupied by English troops, should be good and law- 
ful prize : but that the provisions of the decree should be abro- 
gated and null, in fact, as soon as the English should abide a» 
gain by the principles of the law of nations, which are, also, the 
principles of justice and honor."-f- In opposition, however, to 
the Milan decree, as well as to the Berlin decree, the American 
government strenuously and unceasingly employed every in- 
strument, except the instruments of war. It acted precisely to- 
^aras rrane*! as it actea wwarns it-cr? Mriiai^i, ?H s'jn^ar oc 
casions ; but France remained, for a time, as insensible to ifeiS 
claims of justice and honor as Great Britain, each imitating 
the ether in extravagance of pretension and in obstinacy of 
purpose. 

VVhen the American government received intelligence that 
the orders of the 1 1th of November, 1807, had been under the 
considerrtion of the British cabinet, and were actually prepar- 
ed for promulgation, it was anticipated that France, in a zealour 
prosecution of the retaliatory warfare, would soon produce an 
act of, at least, equal injustice and hostility. The crisis existed, 
therefore, at which the United States were compelled to decide 
either to withdraw their seafaring citizens, and their commer- 
cial wealth from the ocean, or to leave the interest of the marin- 
er and the merchant exposed to certain destruction ; or to en- 
gage in open and active war, for the protection and defence of 
those interens. The principles and the habits of the American 
government were still disposed to neutrality and peace. In 
wei'^hin" the nature and the amount of the aggressions which 
had' been perpetrated, or which were threatened, if there 
were any preponderance to determine the balance, against one 
of the belligerent powers, rather than the other, as the object 
of a declaration of war; it was against fricat Britain, at least, 
upon the vital interest of impressment ; and the obviouB auperi- 

t See UieMilwi decree of the 17U> of December, 18Q7. 



SB 

<&r!ty of her n*val means of annoyance. The Prencli 6*ftf<c'3 
were, indeed, as obnoxious in their fonnation and design asths 
British orders; but the government of France claimed and e:x- 
crcised no right of impressment ; aiKl the raaritime spoliations 
of France were comparatively restricted, not only by her own 
weakness on the ocean, but by the constant and pervading vi- 
gilance of the fleets of her enemy. The difficulty of selection, 
the indi^ci-etion of encountering, at once, both of the ofiending 
powers ; and, aboVe all, the hope of an early return of justice, 
under the dispensations of the anciefit public lavv, prevailed in 
the councils of the American government ; and it was resolved 
fto attempt the preservation of its neutrality and its peace ; of 
its citizens, and its resoul-ces ; by a voluntary suspension of the 
commerce and na-vigation of the United States. It is true, that 
for the minor outrages committed^ under the pretext cf the rn e 
of war of 1756, the citizens of every denomination had demand- 
ed from their government, in the year 1805, protection and re- 
dress; it is true, that for the unparalleled enormities of the year 
1807, the citizens of every denomination again demanded from 
their government protection and redress: but it is. also, a truth, 
conclusively established by ever;- manifefctaticn of the eensc of 
the American people, as well as* of their government, that any 
honorable means of protection and redress, were prcfen-ed to 
the last resort of arms. The American govertiment niight ho- 
norably retire, for a time, from a scene of conflict and collision j 
but it could no longer, with honor, permit its flag to be insult- 
ed, its citizens to be enslaved, and its prgperty W be pi«»dered, 
♦ft the highway of nations. 

Under these impressions, the restrictive system of the United 
States was introduced. In December, 1807, an embargo wa» 
imposed upon all American vessels and merchandise ;4: on prin- 
ciples similar to those, which originated and regulated the em- 
bargo law, authorised to be laid by the president of the United 
States, in the year 1794: but soon afterwards, in the genuine 
spirit of the policy, that prescribed the measure, it was dec'ared 
by law, " that in the event of such peace, or suspension of hos- 
tilities, between the belligerent powers of Europe, or such 
clianges in their measures aifecting neutral coa merce. as mi^ht 
render that of the United States safe, in the judgment of the 
president of the United States, he was auti;oribed to suspend 
the embargo, in whole or in part."|| The pressui-e of the em- 
bargo was thought, however, so severe upon every part of the 
community, that the American government, notwithstanding 
the neutral character of the measure, determijied upon some 
relaxation ; and, accordingly, the embargo being raised, as to 
aH other nations, a system of non-intercourse and non importa- 
tion was subf.titued in March, 1809, as to Great Britain and 
France, which prohibited all voyages to the British or French 

t Seethe aet ofcongi^ss, passed the 22'id of December, IQQf, 
6 See the act of congigss^ passed the 22iidof Agnl, IbC^, 



34 

dcttinions, and all trade in articles of British or French pret' 
duct or manutacture.** But still adhering to the neutral and' 
pacific policy of the government, it MfiB declared, " that the pre- 
sident of the United States sliould be authorised in case either 
France, or Great Britain, should so revcke or modify, her e- 
dicts, as that they should cease to violate the neutral cona- 
nierce of the Udited States, to declare the same by proclama- 
tion ; after which the trade of the United States might be re- 
y>ewed with the nation so doing.* The*e appeals to the justice 
and the inlfrests of the belligerent powers proving ineffectual j ■ 
and the necessities of the countJ'y increasing, it was finally re- 
solved, by the Anierican government, to talte the hazards of a 
war ; to revoke its restrictive system ; and to exclude Britieh 
and French armed vessels from the harbours and waters of the 
United States ; but, again, emphatically to announce, that in 
case either Great Britain or France, should, before the third 
of March, 1811. so revoke, or modify, her edicts, as that 
they should cease to violate the neutval ccmmeree of the U- 
nited States ; and if the other nation should not, within three 
months thereafter, so revoke, or modify her edicts in likeman- 
ffler," the provi»ons of the non intercourse and nonimportation 
law should, at the expiration of three months be revived against, 
the nation refusing or neglecting, to revoke, or modify its e- 
dict f 

In the course which the American government had hithert© 
pursued, relative to the belligerent orders and decrees, the can>- 
did foreign©?, as well as the patriotic citizen, may perceive an 
extreme solicitude, for the preservation of peace ; but in the pub- 
Bic:ty and impartiality, of the overture, that was thus spread 
before the bi'lligerent powers, it is impossible, that any i'ldica- 
tioJi. should be found, of foreign influence or control. The o- 
verture was urged upon both nations for acceptance, at the sama 
time, and in the same raannfr; nor was an intimation withheld 
from either of them, that "it might be regarded by the bellige- 
rent first accepting it, as a promise to itself, and a warning to 
its enemy/'l Each of the nations, from the commencement of 
the retafiatory system, acknovvledged, that its measures were vi- 
olations of piiblic law ; and each pledged itself to retract them, 
whenever the otbf r should set the example.il Although the A- 
merican government, therefore, persi.sted in its remonstrances a^ 
gain«tthe original tran.<;grcssion8, without regard to the queetioa 
of their priority, it embraced, with eagerness, every hope of re- 
conciling tho interests of the rival powers with a performance of 
the duty which they owed to the neutral character of the United 
States:' and wh.en the Britieh minister, residing at Washington, 



*• .Sec ilip act of Conp-ess pasBed the first day of March, 1809. 

• See tlx! 11th soctjon of the l.ist cited act of congress. 

•^ Sec the act of c<inpre.'is, passed the first of May, IHIO. 

i See thp corrcsponcience l)ctwccn tlie secretary of state, and t!ie Amen- 
<jan ministers at London .iikI Puris. 

g .Svc the document.^ laid befure congress from time to time by the presi- 
6*nl, iuid phnted. 



S5 

in the year \b(i9. affirmed in terms a» plain, anfl aa positiv*, a» 
language could supply, " that he wa« authorized to declai-e, that 
})is Britannic majesty's orders in council of January and Novem- 
ber, 1807, will have been withdravTn. as respctta- the U. States, 
on the 10th day of June, 1809," the president of the U. States- 
hastened, with approved liberality, to accept the declaration aa. 
conekreiva evidence, that the promi^efl fact viwtld exist, at the 
stipulated period; and, by an immediate proclair.at:i'.n, he an* 
nounced, *' that after the 10th day of Jone niext, the trade of the 
United States with Great Britain, as suspended by tht non in- 
tercourse law, and by the acts of congress laying and enforcing 
an embargo, might be renewed. "^ Tlie American government, 
neither asked, nor received, from the British minis-ter, an exem- 
plification of hi.-* powers; an inspection of his instructions ; nor 
the solemnity of an order in council: but executed the compact, 
on the part 6f the United States, in all the sincerity of its own > 
fntention&; and-in all the contidence, whichthe official act of tha. 
represantative of his Britannic naajesty^ wascalculated to inspire. . 
The act. and the anthoi*ity for the act, were, however. di«avow- 
©d by Gi'eat Britain; and an attempt was made, by the succes- 
sor of Mr. Erskine, through the aid of insinuations, which were ■ 
indignantly repulsed^ to justify the British rejection of the trea-» 
ty of 1809, by referring to the American rejection of the treaty 
of 1806; forgetful of the e6s.ential points of difl'ereiice, that the 
British government, on the former occasion, had been explicit- • 
ty apprized by the Amrrican aegotiators of their defect of pow-i 
fv; and that the execution of the projected treaty had not, on- 
oither side, be«n commenced If 

After this abortive attempt to obtain a just and honorable re-"^- 
vocation of the British orders in council, the United States wero; 
again invited to indulge the hope of safety and tranquility, when . 
the minister of France announcd to the American minister at ' 
Pari.s, that in consideration of the act of the 1st of May, 1809,-- 
by which the congress cf the United States *' engaged to oppose - 
itself to that one of the belligerent powers which should' refusa' 
to acknowledge the rights of neutrals, he was authorized to de-- 
clare that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, and : 
thatafterthe 1st of November, 1810, they would cease to have- 
effect; it being understood, that in consequence of that declara* 
tion, the English should revoke their orders in council, and re-, 
nounce the new principles of blockade, which they had wished 
to estabhsh ; or that the United States, conformably to the act . 
of congress, should cause their rights to be respected by the En- 
glish "ff This declaration delivered by the official organ of the 
government of France, and in the presence, as it were, of the 

§ Sue ilie coiTCspondence between Mr. Erskine, the British minister, and 
t.hr secretary of state on the irfh, 18th, and 19th of April, 18o9, and the 
Presidenl's proclamation ot'the last date. 

^ See the correspondence between the secretary of state, and Mr. Jack. 
«on, the Hritish minister. 

n See the duke de Cadore's letter to Mi". Armstrong dated the 5th of Ail- 
Jfust^ 1810. 



I'rerfcili Boverfti^n, was of the highest authority, according to a^ 
the rules of diplomatic intorcourae ; and, certdnly, far surpassed 
any claim of credence, which was possessed by the British mi- 
ftjster, residing at Washington, when the arrangement o{ tlie 
year 1809, was accepted and executed by the Anierican aovem- 
taent. The president of the United States, tlierefore, owed to 
the consistency of his own character, and to the dictates of a 
eincere Impartiality, a prompt acceptance of the French over- 
ture: and, accordingly, the authoritative promise, that the fact 
should exist at the stipulated period, being again admitted as con- 
clusive evidence of its existence, a proclamation was issued on 
the 2d of November, 1810, announcing '-that the edicts of 
France had been so revoked, as that they ceased, on the Ist day 
of the same month, to Violate the neutral commerce of the U 
States : and that all the restriction? imposed by the act of con- 

fress, should then cease and be discontinued, in relation to 
'ranee and her deper!dencie8."ft That Finance, from this e- 
poch, refrained from all aggressions on the high seas, or even in 
oev own poi'ts, upon the persons and the property of the 
citizens of the U. States, never was asserted ; but, on the^ 
•ontrary, h«t violence and her spoliations have been unceasing 
causes of complaint. These subsequent injuries, constituting a 
yart of the existing reclamations of the United States, were, al- 
ways, however, disavowed by the French government ; whilst 
the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees has, on every occa- 
sion, been agjrmed,^ insomuch that Greai Britain h6i*seb" Wft>» 
M last, eompellecl to yield to the evidence of the fact. 

On the expiration of three months from the date of the presi- 
dent's proclamation, the non intercourse and non importation 
Iftw was, of course, to be revived against Great Britain, unless, 
during that period, her orders in council should be revoked. — 
The subject was, therefore, most anxiously and most steadily 
pressed upon the justice and the magnanimity of the British go- 
vernment; and even when the hope of success expired, by the 
kipse of the period prescribed in one act of congress, the United 
States opened the door of recenciliation by another act, which, 
in the year 1811, again provided, that incase, at any time, " G. 
Britain should so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall 
cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States ; the 
president of the United should declare the fact by proclamation ; 
and that the i*€8trietions, previously imposed, should, from the 
date of such proclamation, cease and be discontinued.''* But, 
unhappily, every appeal to the justice and magnanimity of Great 
Britain was now^ as heretofore, fruitless and forlorn. She had, 
at this epoch, impressed from the crews of American merchant 
vessels, peaceably navigating the high seas, not less than six 
thousand mariners, who claimed to be citizens of the United 
States, and who were denied all opportunity to verify their 
claims. She had seized and confiscated the commercial properj 

ff See the President's proclamition of the 2n(\ of November, 1810. 
* Sec tlie act of coiigrc&s, passed Mm 2iid of March, ISll. 



-37 

•f Atnerlcto cithcns fd an hicikulable amount. She had uttit» 
^ed in the enormities of France, to declare a great proportion oi 
the terraqueous globe in a etate of blockade ; chasing the Ame- 
rican merchant liag eifectually from the ocean. She had con- 
temptuoualy disregarded the neutrality of the American territo^ 
ry, and the juriBdiction of the American laws, within the wa» 
ters and harbors of the United States. She was enjoying the 
emolivments of a surreptitious trade, stained with every apeciea 
of fraud and corruption, which gave to the belligerent powers, 
the advantages of peace, while the neutral powers were involv- 
ed itt the evils of war. She had, in short, usurped and exercis- 
ed on the water, a tyranny similar to that, which her great an- 
tagonist had usurped and exercised upon the land. And, amidst 
&\] these proofs of ambition, and avai-ice, she demanded that the 
victims of her usurpations and her violence, should revere her 
«0 the sole defender of the rights and liberties of mankind. 

Wheja, therefore, Great Britain, in manifest violation of her 
solemn promises, refused to follow the example of trai ce, by 
the repeal of her orders in counuil, the American government 
was compelled to contemplate a resort to arms, as the only re- 
maining course to be pursued, for its honor, it* independence, 
and its safety. Whatever depended upon the United States 
themselves, the United States had performed for the preser- 
vation of peace, in resistance of the French decrees, as well 
as of the British orders. What had been required from France 
in its relation to the neutral character of the United States, 
France had performed, by the revocation of its Berlin and Mi- 
lan decrees. But who* depended upon Great Britain for the 
purposes of justice, in the repeal of her ovders in council, was 
withheld ; and new evasions were sought, when the old were ex- 
hausted. It was, at one time, alleged, that satisfactory proof 
was not afforded, that France had repealed her decrees against 
the commerce of the United States ; as if such proof alone wet© 
wanting, to ensure the performance of the British promise f— 
At another time, it was insisted, that the repeal of the French 
decrees, in their operation against the United States in order iff 
authorise a demand for the performance of the British promise, 
must be total, applying equally to their internal, and their ex- 
ternal eifecta; as if the United States had either the right «r the 
power to impose upon France the law of her domestic institn- 
tions.^: And it was. finally, insisted, in a despatch from kn-d Cas- 
tlereagh to the British m nister, residing at Washington, in the 
year 1812, which was officially communicated to the American 
government, " that the decrees of Berlin a»d Milan must not be 
'repealed singly and specially, in relation to the United States ; 
but must be repealed, also, as to all other neutral nations ; and 
that in no l'>ss extent of a repeal of the French decrees, had the 
British govei*nmfnt ever pledged itself to repeal the orders in 

•f See the correspondence between Mr. finkJKy and tb« Bntisb govtre- 
■ftent. 
I Ske tbc lctt«n «{ Mr. £r»kin«. 



'v38 

council :**il as if it were incumbent on the United States, not 
only to assert lierown rights, but to become the coadjutor of the 
B. itish government, in a gratuitous assertion of the rights of all 
other nations. 

The Congress of the United States could pause no longer.-— 
Under a deep and aflSicting sense of the national wrongs, ani 

■ the national resentments — wiiiie they " postponed definitive 
measures with respect to France, in the expectation that the 
result of unclosed discussions between the American minister 
at Paris and the French government, would speedily enable 

-them to decide, with greater advantage, on the course due to 
the rights, the interests, and the honor of our country ;"* they 
pronounced a deliberate and solemn declaration of war, between 
■Great Britain and the United States, on the 18th of June, 1812, 
But, it is in the face of all the facts which have been dis- 
played in the present narrative, that the Prince Regent, by his 

•declaration of January, 1813, describes the United States as the 
aggressor in the war. If the act of declaring war constitutes, 
in all cases, the act of original aggression, the United States 
must submit to the severity of the reproach; but if the act of 
declaring war may be more truly considered as the result of 
long saffering, and necessary self defence, the American govern- 
ment will stand acquitted, in the sight of Heaven, and of the 
world. Have the United States, then, enslaved the subjects^, 
confiscated the property, prostrated the commerce, insulted ths 
flag, or violated the territorial sovreignty of Great Britain— 
Jfo; but, in all these respects, the United States had sutYered, 
for a long per-iod of years previously to the declaration of 
war, the contumely and outrage of the British government.— 
It has been said, too. as an aggravation of the imputed ag- 
gression, that the U. States chose a period for their declaration 
of war, • when Great Britain was stixiggiing for her own ex 
istencc, against a power which threatened to overthrow the in- 
dependence of all Europe; but it might be more truly said* 
that the United States, not acting upon choice, but upon com= 
.pulsion, delayed the declaration of war, until the persecutions 
of Great Britain had rendered farther delay destructiveand 
disgraceful. Great Britain had converted the commerciaJ 
scenes of American opulence and prosperity, into scenes of com- 
parative poverty and distress ; she had brought the existence 
of the United States, as an independent nation, into question ; 
end surely, it must have been indiifercnt to the United States^ 
whether they ceased to exist as an independent nation, by her 
conduct, while she professed friendbhip, or by her conduct whea 
■she avowed enmity and revenge. Nor is it true, that the ex- 
istence of Great Britain was in danger, at the epoch of the 
declaration of war. The American government uniformly en- 
tertained an opposite opinion ; and, at all times, saw more to 

!| Sf." the c jrrespondence between the secretary of state and Mr. Foster, 
t]\e Finlish mlnisttrin .Fuiie, 1812. 

• S.;c titc prcsident'ti me.ss ge of the 1st of Juuf, 181 ■" ; and the report cf 
the committee of foi-cign rclati^^ns, to whom the mesaa^e >vas rtfene«2> ' 



39 

Apprehend for the United States, from her maTftime power, 

'than from the territorial power of her enemy. The event h«B 

justified the opinion and the apprehension. But what the Unit- 

eri States asked, as essential to their welfare, and even as ban- 

eficial to the allies of Great Britain, in the European war, G, 

Britain, it ie manifeet, tnight have granted, without impairing 

" the resources of her own strength, or the splend ^r of her own 

sovereignty ; for her orders in council have been since revoked ; 

"Bot, it is true, as the performance of her promise, to follow, in 

this respect, the example of France, since she finally rested tho 

' obligation of that promise upon a r^-peal of the French decrees, 

as to all nations ; and the repeal was only as to the United 

States ; nor as an act of natioi.-.i justice towards the United 

States ; but simply, as an act of doBiestic policy, for the special 

advantage of her own people. 

The British government bae, also, described the war as ft 
war of aggrandisement and conquest, on the part of the Unit- 
ed States ; but where is the foundation for the charge? While 
Che American government employed every means to dissuade 
the Indians, «ven those who lived within the territory, and were 
supplied by the bounty of the .United States, from taking any 
part in the war,f the proofs were irresistible, that the enemy 
pursued a very different course 4 and that every precaution 
would be necessary, to prevent the etfects of an offensive aili= 
ance between the British troops and the savages throughout the 
northern frontier of the U. States. Ttje military occupation 
of Upper Canada was, therefore, deemed indispensable to tlj« 
safety of that frontier, in the earliest movements of tlie war, in- 
dependent of all views of extending the territorial boundary of 
the United States But, when war was declared, in resentment 
for injuries which had been suffered upon the Atlantic, what 
principle of public law, what modification of civilized warfare, 
imposed upon the U. States the duty of abstaining from thein- 
-vasian of the Canad&s ? It was there alone, that the United 
Sts tc^s could place themselves upon an equal footing of militt- 
tary force with Great Britain ; and it was there that they 
might reasonably encourage the hope of being able, in the pro* 
secution of a lawful retaliation, "torcatrain the violence of tho 
enemy, and to retort upon him the evils of his own injuf.tice.'* 
The proclamations issued by the American commanders, on en- 
tering Upper Canada, have, however, been adduced by the Brx- 
-tish np.gociatorS at Ghent, as the proofs cf a spirit of ambition 
and aggrandisement, on the part of theit- government In truth, 
the proclamations were not only Tinauthoiiscii and disapproved, 
but were infractions of the positive instructions which had been 
given, for the conduct of the war in Canada. When the gene- 
ral commanding tlie north we&tern army of the United States 
received, on the 24.thof June, 1812, his first authority to com- 

. t See tiie proceedin.srs of the councils held with the Iiidiiuis, during the 
expedition under Brig'udier fienend Hull, and ihe talk delivered by the 
President of the U. States, to the six nations, at WashiiiEftou on the dth of 
April, I«l.}. . ' 

t-Seethe documents laid before congress, or the 13 .h of June, 181*. 



49 

06nc« offensive operationa, he was especially totd, that " he. 
muat Qot consider himself authorised to pledge the government 
to the inhabitants of Canada, further than assurances of pro- 
teotioa m their persons, property and rights." And on the ensu- 
ing Ist of August, it was emphatically declared to him, " that 
it had become necessary, that he should not lose sight of the in- 
structions of the 24th of June, as any pledge beyond that wa« 
iuco npatible with the views of the government."* Such wa» 
the nature of the charge of American ambition and aggran- 
<liz3nient, and such the evidence to support it. 

The prince regent, has however, endeavored to add to th«»e 
unfounded accusations, a stigma, at which the pride of the A- 
merican government revolts Listening to the fabrications of 
British emissaries ; gathering scandals from the abuses of a free 
press ; and misled, perhaps, by the asperities of a party spirit, 
common to all free government ; he affects to trace the origin 
of the war to " a marked partiality, in palliating and assisting 
the aggressive tyranny of France ; and " to the prevalence of 
such councils, as associated the United State*, in policy with 
the government of that natioa."+ The conduct of the Americaa 
government is now open to every scrutiny; and its vindication 
is inseparable from a knowledge of the facts. All the world 
must be sensible, indeed, that neither in the general policy of 
the late ruler of France, nor in his particular treatment of the 
United States, could there exist any political, or rational foun- 
dation, for the sympathies and associations, overt or clandes- 
tine, which have been rudely and unfairly suggested. It is e- 
qually obvious, that nothing short of the aggressive tyranny, ex- 
ercised by Great Britain towards the United States, could have 
••oante,racted and controlled, those tendencies to peace and ami- 
ty, which denved t.eir impulse, from natural and social causes ; 
combining the affections and interests of the two nations. The 
Atnerican government, faithful to that principle of public law, 
which acknowledges the authority of all governments establish- 
ed de facto ; and conformding its practice, in this respect, to the 
example of Europe ; has never contested the validity of the go- 
vernments suoaessively established in France ; nor refrained 
from that intercourse with either of them, xvhioh the just in- 
terests of the United States required. But the British cabinet 
iis challenged to produce, from the recesses of its secret, or of its 
public archives, a single instance of unworthy concessions, or of 
political aliance and combination, throughout the intercourse 
of the United States, with the revolutionary rulers of France. 
Wan it tUe inftnrnce of French councils, that induced the Ame- 
can government to resi.st the pretf-nsioii.* of France, in 1 793, and 
to eaoounter her hostilities in 1798? that led to the ratification 
of the British lrea?y in 1795; to the British negociation in 
1805, and to the convention with the British minister in 1809 ? 



• See the letter from the Secretary of the war department, to btig. g«l». 

Hull, (L-iteri ilie 24th of Juna and the 1st ./ AuRUst, 1812. 
t Sec the British dcdar^ticn to the l^ih qlT iw*vy, iiVS. 



41 

that dictated the impartial overture*, which were made to Q. 
Britain, as well as to France, during the vvliole period ol the 
resti-ictivetBystein ? that produced the determiiiaUon to avoid 
makin"' any Ireuty, even a treaty of conunci-ce, vvitlj Frauce, 
until the outrage of the Ram )Ouiliet de-cree Wds repaired f^; that 
sanctioned the repeated and urgent elibrts of the American go- 
vernment, to put an end to tlje war, almost us aoon as it waa 
declared ? or that, tinally, prompted the exphcit communica- 
tion, vvhioh, in pursuance of instructions, wa.'s made by tlie A- 
merican minist.r, at St. Petersburgh, to the court of KubS a, 
staling, " that the principal subjects of discussion, which had 
long been subsisung between the United States and i'rar.ce, 
remained unsettled; that there was no immediate prospect, tJiat 
there would be a satisfactory settlement of them ; but that, 
wii&tever the event, in that respect, might be, it was not the in- 
tention of the govGrnment of the United States, to enter mto 
any more intimate connexions with France ; that the govern- 
ment of the United l?tates did not anticipaieany event whatev- 
er, that could produce that effect; and that the American mm- 
isterwas the more happy to find himself authorized by his go- 
vernment to avow this intention, as differeut representations of 
their views had been widely circulated, as well in Europe, as in 
America."i| But, while ever}'^ actof the American government 
thus falsifies the charge of a subserviency to the policy of 
France, it maybe justly remarked, that of ail the governments, 
maintaining a necessary relation and intercourse v.-ith that na- 
tion, fron) the commencement, to the recciit termination, of the 
revolutionary establishmentf , it has hap]>ened, that the goverji- 
ment of the U'lited States, has least exhibited m^^ks of conde- 
scension and co-Ticession to the successive rulers. If^s lorGieat 
Britain, more pur.icularly, as an accuser, to examine and explain 
the consi.'itencv of the reproaches, which she has uttWed against 
the United States, with the course of her own conduct ; with 
her repeated iiegociations, during the republican, as well as dur- 
ing the impirinl. sway of France ; with her solicitude to njake 
an<i ta propose ti-eaties ; with her interchange of commercial 
benefits, so irreconcilable to a state of war; with the almost tii- 
umpnant ►^ni^rv ofn French ambassador into her capital, amidst 
the acclamations of the popukce ; and with the prosecution, in- 
stituted, by the orders oi" the king of Great Britain himself, in 
the highest coui t of criminal jurisdiction in his kingdom, to 
punish the printer nf a gazette, for publishing a libel on the 
conduet and character of t)ie late ruler of France! Whatever 
may be tljp source of these symptoms, liowever they may indi- 
cate a subservient policy, sufh symptoms have neveif occurred 
in the United States, through.out the imperial government of 
•Fi-ance. ^ 

1 See the instructions from ilt -■i=Tiet:iryofs'iatetolhe American minister 
at Pails t^a'cd tl:e 29tli Ma- . 181 ■ 

i| See Mr. Munroc's lette. ic Mr. AcIa.Tis, dated the- Ist of July 1S12 ; and 
Mr. AdaiTs^ letter to Mr. Mui roe tUled the llth Dtttraber, 1812, 



43 

The conduct of the. United States, from the moment of de-. 
daring the war, will serve, as well astlieir previous conduct, to 
rescue thcni from the unjust reproaches of Great Britain. 
When war was declared, the orders in council had been main- 
tained, with inexorable hostility, until a thousand American 
vessels with their cargoes had been seized and confiscated, un- 
der their operation ; the British minij^ter at Washington had, 
with peculiar solemnity, announced that the orders would not 
be repealed, but upon conditions, which the American govern- 
ment had not the right, nor the power, to fulfil ; and the Eu- 
ropean war, which had raged, with little iaiermissiun for twen- 
ty years, threatened an indefinite continuance. Under these 
circumstances, a repeal of the orders, and a cessation of the in- 
juries, wliich they pi'oduced, were events beyond all rational an- 
ticipation. It appears, however, that the orders under the in- 
fluence of a parliamentary inquiry into their effects upon the 
trade and manufactures of Great Britain, were provisionally re- 
pealed on the 2Sd of June, 1812, a few days subsequent to the 
American declaration of war. If this repeal had been made 
known to the United Stales, before their resort to arms, th^ 
repeal would have arrested it ; and that cause of war being re- 
moved, the other essential cause, the practice of impressment, 
would have been the subject of renewed negociation, under the 
auspicious influence of a partial, yet important act of reconcilia- 
tion. But the declaration of war, having announced the practice 
of impressment, as a principal caose, peace could only be the re- 
sult of an express abandonment of the practice of a suspensica 
of the practice, for the purposes of negociation ; or of a cessa- 
tion of actual sufferance, in consequence of a pacification in Eu* 
• ope, which would deprive Great Britain of every motive fo? 
continuing the practice. 

Hence when earlj- intimations, were given, from Halifax and 
from Gjinada, of a disposition, on the part of the local authori- 
ties to enter into an armistice, the power of those authorities 
was so doubtful, the objects of the armistice were so limited, and 
the immediate advantages of the measure were so entirely on 
'•.he side of the enemy, that the American government could 
not, consistently with its duty, embrace the proposition.* But 
^ome hope of an amicable adjustment wa? inspired, when a com- 
munication was received from admir<tl Warren, in September, 
1812, stating tliat he was commanded by his government, to 
propose on the one xiand '' that the government of the United 
States should instantly rccal their letteis of maique and repri- 
sal iigainst British ships, together with all orders and instruc- 
tions for any acts of hostility, whatever against the territories 

* S c tli<; 't-McTsof thf departiTic-nt of .state, to ?Jr. Rvissfll;, dated the 9th 
sikI lOvh of A'.ij^iist, 1812, nr.d Mr. GnOiam's menioranflum of a convfisa- 
'ion with Mr. Baker, the Rrilish .stcretaiy nf lf}r;ttion, mclosed in the hi^t 
; -tter. Ste nho Mv .Vlunioc'.s letter tt) Mr. Ri\st;eU, dated 'Ak '^lit of .l.: 
J^v•t, 18}2. 



43 

ofhia majesty, or the persons or property of his subjects ;" and 
to promise on the other hand, if the Ainerican government ac- 
quiesced in the preceeding proposition, that instructions should 
be issued to the British squadrons to discontinue hoslilities a- 
gainst the United States and their citizens. This overture, 
however, was subject to a further qualification, *' that should 
the American government accede to the proposal fov terminat- 
ing hostilities, the British Admiral was autliorised to arrange 
with the American government, as to the revocation of the laws 
which interdict the commerce and ships of war of Great Brit- 
ain from the harbours and waters of the United Stares; but 
that in defa.'lt of such revocation within the reasonable period 
to be agreed upon, the orders in council would be revived,' f— 
The American government, at once, at once expressed a dispo- 
sition to embrace the general proposition for a cessation of hos- 
tilities, with a view to negociation ; declared that no peace could' 
be durable, unless the essential object of impressment was ad- 
justed ; and offered, as the basis of the adjustment, to prohibit 
the employment of British subjects in the naval or commercial 
service of the United States ; but adhering to its determina- 
tion of obtaining a relief from actual suffrance, the suspensica 
oi'the practice of impressment pending the proposed armittice^ 
was deemed a necessary consequence; for, " it could not be pre- 
sumed, while the parties were engaged in a negociation to ad- 
just amicably this important difference, that the United States 
would admit the right, or acquiesce in the practice, of the oppo- 
site party ; or that Great Britain vi'ould be unwilling restrain her 
cruizsrsfrom a practice which wouid have the strongest effect to 
defeat the negotiation.' if So ju^t, so reasonable, so indispensible, 
a preliminary, without which the citizens of the United States, 
navigating the high seas, would not be placed, by the armistice, 
on an equal footing with th« subjects of Great Britain, admiral 
Warrin was not authorized to accept; and the elfort at an arnica^ 
ble adjustment, through that channel, was necessarily abortive. 
But long before the overture of the British admiral was made 
(a few days, indeed, after the declaration of wax-,) tha reluc- 
tance with which the United States had resorted to a: ms, was 
monifested by the stepi talcen to arrest the progress of hostili- 
tiei. and to hasten a restoration of peace. On the 26ih of June 
1812, the American charge d'aifai r.s at London, was instructed 
to make the proposal of an armistice to the British govern- 
mfnt, which migiit lead to an adjujitment of all diifereiices on 
th'^'- single condition, in the event of the orders in council' being 
rep aled, that instructions should be issued, suspending the 
practice of impressment during the armistice. This proposal 
wxs soon tollo'.ved by anot'ier, adriiitting. instead of positive in- 
atructions, an informal understanding between the two governT 

f Sje the letter of admiral Warren, to the sen; ttary of state, dated at HftI . 
if;xthf 2?lhof.Sept. 1812, 

i See -lie letter of Mr. Mimroc, to admiral Warrcr,, dated the 27th of 
October, Ifc 13. 



44 

mcnta on the subjectll But both of these proposals •j^rg un- 
hapily rejected. J And when a third, which seenied to leave 
no plea for hesitation, as it required no other priieminary,. 
than that the American minister at London, should find in the 
British government, a sincere disposition to accommodate the 
difference, relative to impressment, on fair conditions, was eva- 
ded, it was obvious, that neither a desire of peace, nor a spirit of 
conciliation, influenced the councils of Great Britain. 

Under these circumstances the American goveriiment had no 
choice but to invigorate the war ; and yet it has never lost sight 
of the object of all just wars, a just peace. The Empviror of Rus- 
sia having offered his mediation to accomplish that object, it 
was instantly and cordially accepted by the American govern- 
ment ;,•[ but it was peremptor,ly rejected by the British Gov- 
ernment. The Emperor, in his benevolence, repeated his in- 
vitation ; the British government again rejected it. At last, 
however. Great Britain, sensible of the reproach, to which sucii 
conduct would expose her throughout Europe, offered to the 
American government, a direct negociation for peace, and the 
offer was promptly embraced ; with perfect confidencp that tha 
British government would be equally prompt in giving elTectt^j 
Its own proposal. But such was not the design or course of the 
British government. The American envoys were immediately- 
appointed, and arrived at Gottenburg, the dt'stined scene of ne- 
gociation, on the 11th of April, 1814-, as soon as the season ad- 
aiitted. The British government, though regularly informed^ 
that no time would be lost on the part of the United States, 
suspended the appointment of its envoys, until ihe actual arri- 
val of the American envoys should be formall}' communicated. 
This pretension, however novel and inauspicious, was not per- 
mitted to obstruct the path to peace. The British government 
next proposed to transfer the negociation from Gotlenburgh to 
Ghent. .This change, also, notwitlistanding tlie necessary de- 
lay, was allowed. The American envoys arriving at Ghent, 
on the 2Uh of June, remained in a mortifying state of suspen.'^e 
and expectation for the arrival of the British envoys, until the 
6th of August. And from the period of opening the negucia- 
tions. to the date of the last dispatch of the 31st of October, it 
has been seen that the whole of the diplomatic skill of the Brit- 
ish government, has consisted in consuming time, without ap- 
proaching any conclusion. Tiie pacification of Paris had sud- 
denly and unexpectedly placed at the disposal of the British go- 
vernment a great naval and military force; the pride and pas- 
sions of t'le nation were artfully excited again 't the Unitc<l 
States; and a war of desperate and barbarous character was 

1 See llie lettei-s from ihe secretary of state to Mr. Kus.^tl, dated tlie 26th 
of J'ine .ivd 27ih cf Jiilv, 1812. 

^ See the c(jiTes[,oiidi,"iirc hr-twccn i\fr. TJiissell, .ind lord Cistlereag'!', 
dated Aiii';u.st ami KcjjU ir.ber, 1812, ainl Mr. liiLiseil's letters to tlie secret;..- 
ry nf stall', dated Sc-pt. 1812. 

«J Sec tlie corresponlence Letween Mr. Monroe and Mr. Dasctkcf J", in 
Mwcb, 181 J. 



4B 

^krnw^y at the very moment that the American governmpnt, 
ffinJiug its maritime citizens relieved, by the course of events, 
from actual sufFrance, under the practice of iajpressinent, had 
auliiorized its euvoys to waive tho^e slipulalioiitt upon the su>>- 
jcct, which might otherwise have been indispensible precau- 
tions. 

Hitherto the American government has shewn the juetice 
of its cause; its respect for the rights of other nations; and 
its inherent love of peace. But the scenes- of war will also 
exiiibit a striking contrast, between the conuuct of the United 
States, and the conduct of Great Britain. The same ineiduoiis 
policy wliich taught the prince regent to describe the Ameri- 
can governmenit as the aggressor in tlie war, has inducea the 
British government (clouding the daylight, truth, of the trans- 
action) to call the attrocities of the British fleets and armies, a 
retaliation upon the example of the American troops in Cana^ 
da. The United States tender a solemn appeal tc the civilized 
world, against the fabrication of such a chaige ; and they 
vouch, in support of their appeal, the known morals, habits a!>d 
pursuits of their people ; the character of tlicir civil and politi- 
cal institutions ; and the whole career of their navy jind ths-ir 
army, as humane, as it is brave. Upon what pretext did iLe 
British admiral, on the 18th of August, Ibl-i, announce his de- 
termination, " to des'.roy and lay waste such towns and districts 
upon the coast as might be found assailable?'* It was the 
pjretext of a request from the governor general of the Canadas, 
for aid to carry into effect measui-es of retaliation; while in 
fact, the barbarous nature of the war had been deliberately st-t- 
led and prescribed by the British cabinet. What couid havs 
been the foundation of such a request? The outrages and i. reg- 
ularities which too often occur during a state of national hostil- 
ities, in violution of the laws of civilized warfare, are always to 
be lamented, disavowed and repaired, Uy a just and honourable 
gov*rnm€nt; but if disavowal be made, and if reparation b. of- 
fered, there is no foundation for retaliatory violence. '• What- 
ever unauthorised irregularity niay have been committed b3- a- 
ay of the troops of the United States, the American govein- 
ment has been ready, upon pi'inciples of sacred and eternal ot- 
Sigaticn, to disavow, and as far as it might bepractcable, to re- 
pair.';! In every known instance (and they arefcw) the olTen- 
ders have been subjected to the regular investigation of a n)il- 
itary tribunal ; and an officer, commanding a party of stragler?, 
■•.vho were guilty of unworthy esce^^cs, was inimedi?tely dis- 
missed v/ithout the form of a trial, for not preventing those cx- 
<-es.ses. The destruction of the village of Newark, adjacent to 
Fort Gecrge. on the 10th of Decem.ber, 18;3, was long subse- 
quent to the pillage and conflagration committed on the shoies 

* Si e ndinii-al Ccchrane's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the 18lh of August 
. 18U ; and .Mr. Moiiroe'a ;ins\vtr of the Gtli Septcnibei', 1814. 

f See the letter from tlie secrc'.-irv cf vur to briffadkr gf'rcral >f'Lure, 
rlated 4tb of October, 1813. 



46 

of the Chesapeake, throughout the eummpr of the gRind year 
and miglit faiilv have been alleged as a retaliation for those' 
outrages ; but, in fact, it was justified by the American com- 
mander, who ordered it, on the ground, that it became necessa- 
ry to the military operations at that place ;t while the Ameri- 
can government, as soon as it heard of the act, on the 6th of 
January, i.814, ins^tructed the general commanding the north- 
era arrny, •' to divivow the conduct of the officer who commit- 
ted it, and to transmit to governor Prevost, a copy of the order, 
under colour of w':ich that officer had acted."|l This disavow 
al was accordingly communicated ; and on the ICHh of Februri' 
ry, 1814-. Gov. Prevost answered, "that it had been with great 
sat'sfaction. ho liad received the assurance, that the perpeti-ation 
of the burning the tov^n of Newark, was both unauthorised by 
the Amc!rican governnieHt, and abhorrent to every American 
feeling; that rf any oiiti'ages had ensued the wanton and unjtistT- 
f^sblo destruction of Newark, passing the bounds of just retali- 
ation, they were to be attributed, to the influence of irritated 
passions, on the part of the unfortunate sufferers by that wer.t 
which, in a state of active warfare, it has not been possible alto- 
gether to restrain ; and that it was as little congenial to the- 
dispof^ition of his majesty's government, as it was to that of the 
government of ihe United States, deliberately <o adopl: any plan 
of policy, wliich had for its object the devastation of private 
property.^" B'lt the disavowel of the American government 
was not the only expiation of the oflence committed by its officer ; 
for th.e Britisli government assumed the province of redrcac 
in the indulgence of its own vengeance. A few days after the 
buining of Nt'wark, the British and Indian troops crossed the 
Niagara, for this pnrnosf^ ; they surprisiod and sirzed fort Nia- 
gaia and put its garrison to the .^sword ^ they burnt the viiliges 
of Lewistown. Majichcster, Tu^carora, BuR'alo and Black Roth;, 
slaughtering and abusing the unarmed inhabitants; until, in 
shoit. tliey had la^d watri the whole of. the Niagara frontier, 
levelling every house and every hut. and d'spersirg, beyond the 
means of shelter, in the extremity of winter, the male and the 
female the old and the young. Sr O'orge Prevo.'^t, h'mself' 
appears to have been sated with the ruin, and the havoc, v/hich 
had been thus inflicted. In hisp .oclamation of the i2th of Jan- 
uary, iSil-, he emphatically declared, that for the burning of 
JNcvvark. 'the opportunty of punishment had occurred, and a 
full measure of retaliation had t^'.ken place;" and ''that it was 
not his intention to pursue further a .system ofwarfare, so re- 
volting t ) his own feelings, and so little congenial to the Biit- 
ish chai'acter, unlesa the futvire measures of tlio enemy should 

t (ivn. M.'Lf.re's Ict'ers to the stcictary of war, dated Dtc 10 and 1;}, 
1P1.5. 

1) .See t!'C letter fl-om the socpctary al war to m jor general ■\ViVK.iri!n!i, 
(la-i-Al tl.c 2(;:h oF-l.-imiaiy IhH. 

% .See tlic letter (^f m ■jo- (:jciur:\l Wilkiii=;()i) to ■ ir Gcoire Pirvos>l; dated 
tfie 2^1,1) of .Timiiarv, 181 1, and the «nsw^r of Sir George I'revost, on the 
IQlli (u February, lfj;4- 



47 

compel him agiin id resort to it."* Nay, with hJB an.iwer le 
the Amorieaa generil, already mentioned, ho trari-inilted " a 
copy of that proclainalion, as expressive nf the determination, 
as to his future line of conduct;" and added, "that he was hap- 
py to learn, that tlicre was no probiiity, that any measures on 
the part of the American government would oblige him to de- 
part from it."t Where then shall we search for the foundation 
of the call upon the British admiral, to aid t'le governor of 
Canada in m'iasures of retaliation ? Great Britain forgot the 
principles of retaliation, when her orders in council were issu- 
ed ag;aint>t the unoffending neutral, in resentment of outrages 
committed by hi;r enemy ; and surely, she had again forgotterv 
the same principle, when, slie tiir atened an unceasing violation 
of the laws of civilized wai'f.ire, in retalition for injuries which 
never existed, or which the American government had explicit- 
ly disavowed, or wliich had been already avenged by her own 
arms, in a manner and a degree, cruel and unparalieied. The 
American government after all, has not hesitated to declare, 
that "for the reparation of injuries, of whatever nature they 
may be, not sanctioned by the law of nation.*-, which the miiita- 
ry or naval force of either power might have committed aga nst 
the other, it would alv/ays be ready to enter into reciprocal ar- 
rangements ; presuming that the British govcinment would 
neither expect, nor proiiose, any which were not reciprocal. ':|: 

It is now, however, proper to examine the character of the 
warfare, which Great Britain has waged against the United 
States. In Europe, it has already been marked with astonish 
ment and indignation, as a warfare of the tomahawk, the scalp- 
ing knife and the torch ; as a warfare, incompatible with tlie 
usages of civilized nations; as a warfare, tiiat, discliiming ail 
moral influence, inflict.? an outrage upon social order, and gives 
a shock to the very elements of htiraanity. All beiiigeren^ na- 
tions can form alliances with the savage, the African and the 
bloodhound; but what civilized nation has selected these auxil- 
iaries, in its hostilities ? It does not require the fleets and ar- 
mies of Gi'eat Britain to lay waste an open country ; to buin 
Unfortiiied towns, or unprotected villages ; nor to plunder the 
merchant, the farmer and tiie planter of his stores — these ex- 
ploits may easily be achieved by a single cruizer. or a petty 
privateer; but when have such exploiis been performed en the 
coasts of the continent of Europe, or of the British Islands, by 
the naval and military force of any belligerent power; or when 
have they been tolerated by anv honourable govrrnment, as the- 
predatory enteipnse of armed individuals ? Nor, is the destruc- 
tion of the public edifices, which adorn the metropolis of a 

• Se,^ Sir George Prevo.st'^ proclamation^ rluted rJ Qviebec, on tlie 12tli of 
Jan'iaiy, 114 

t f^'<H' the 1 -ttei- of S'.r Hpo-tc Prevnsx ^-, s^pn. WUkinsor, dutcd the lO^h 
of Fe!)ri!ar-y, 1614. ; imd the British g'er.c.al orders, of ihe 52 J of 1-Vhru:irv 
1 81 4-. " - ^ 

* ^,^,f,^^^'. Mora-oe's len.er'o a^!m':r:)2 ^ochninr, ^l.iWd tht tJ^hof Scptf-m- 
t^r^ 1814= f--^- 



48 

crfuntry, and serve to commemorate the taste and science of the 
age, beyond the sphere of action of the vilest incendiar^y, as weH 
as tlie most triumphant conqueror. It cannot be forgotten, in- 
deed, that in the course of ten years past, the capitals of the 
principal powers of Europe have been conquered, and occupied, 
alternately, by the victorious armies of each other ;* and yet 
there lias been no instance of a conilagration of the palaces, the 
temples or the halls of justice. So ; such examples have pro- 
ceeded from Great Britain alone ; a nation so elevated in its 
piide; so awful in its power; and so affected in-ils tenderness 
for tiie liberties of mankind ! The charge is severe, but let the 
facts be adduced. 

1. Great Britain has violated the principles of social law, by 
insiduous attempts, to excite the citizens of the United States 
into acts of contumacy, treason and revolt, against their gov- 
ernment For instance : 

No sooner had the American government imposed the re- 
strictive system upon its citizens, to escape from the rage and 
depredations of the belligerent powers, than the British go- 
vernment then professing amity towards the United States, is- 
sued an order, wiiich was in eflect, an invitation to the Ameri- 
can citizens to break the law.5 of their country, under a public 
promise of British protection and patronage, "to all vessels which 
should eaga^^e in an illicit trade, without bearing the customa- 
ry ship's documents and papers."f 

Again : During a period of peace, between the U. States 
and G'-eat Britain, in the year 1809, the governor general of 
theC'anadas employed an agent (who had previously been en- 
gaa;edina siiiilar service with tiie knowledge and approbation 
of tlie British cabinet) '- on a secret and confidential mission,"" 
into tlie United States declaring, " that there was no doubt, 
that his able execution of such a mission, would give iiim a 
claim, not on'y on the governor general, but on his majfisty's 
ministers." The object of the mission, was to ascertian, wheth- 
er there existed adisposition in any portion of the citizens, "to 
"bring about a separation of the Eastern States from the gene- 
ral union ; and how far in ?uch an event, they would lock up 
to Eiiigland for assistance, or be disposed to enter into a connex- 
ion with her."' Tlie agent was instructed to insinuate, that if 
any of the citizens sliould wish to enter into a commnnication 
wilh the British government, through the governor general, he 
was authoriricdto reci'ive such communication; and that he \7uuld 
safely transmit it to the govenror general."'! He was accred- 
itc'lby a formal instrument, under the seal and signature of tlis 
governor general to be produf^ed, " if he sa-.v good ground fur 
exjK'Ccing, that the doing so might lead to a more confidential 

• Sec Mv. Muiiroe's letter to iidiraval Cochrane, dated the 6th of Scptcir.- 
b'.r, 18M., 

I Sre the iiv=;tnicti()ns to the commanders of British ships of war and 
priviircers, dated ih" 1 Uli of .^piil. 1S03. 

\ See the Icl'er fVoni Mr. U}!.i.nl, i!iO s-crrtary of the pov-irnor gtntra!, 
to Mr. Henry, dated t!ie 2C\}i of Juiui;J-y, lb(^- 



4% 

cofhmUmcation, thJin he conld otlici-wise lookJPor ;'- and he>»a» 
furnished with a cry^jher " i'or carrying on the secret corres- 
rondcnce"il The virtoe and palriotisiii of the citizi'.ns uf the 
United Slatej were superior to the arts and cor; uption eit.plny- 
ed in this secret end cor-fidentiStl'inissicn, if it cverw, s (l ch»a- 
ed to any cf tliem ; and the m^Sdion itself term nafrd ug 
aoon 83 the arrantiCtiKnt -with M.-. F-iskine w8f announced. (— 
But, in the afft of recaning the secret emissary, he was inform- 
ed "that the whole of hie" le(t<;rs wei*e trair-crihiiig to bf' sent 
home, where they could not fail of doing him p,reat credit, 
and it was hoped they might evcjitunlly contribute to his per- 
manent advantage/'**" To endeavor to realise that hope, the 
emissary p:'oceeded to 1 ondon ; all the circi)n)st8nfe6 of his 
mission were "madekrown to the British minister ; his services 
v.'ere approved and aclindwledged ; a^d he via s scut to Canada 
for a reward ; with a'receJiimcndatury letter from Pord jLiver- 
ipool to sir George Prevost, "stating his lordship's opinion of 
•^he ability -and judgment which Mr. Henry had manifested on 
the occasions mentioned in hio memorial, (his secret and confi- 
dential missions) and of the benetit the puhlic service might 
derive Ti-tfm his acHv? employment, in any public situation iii 
which Sir George Prevost might ttiink proper to place him,"ff 
The world Will judge tipon these facts, and the rejection of a 
•pariiameTJtary call for the production ^f the papers relating to 
them, what credit is due to the print e regent's assertion, " that 
Mr. Henry's mission was undertaken without the authority ot 
even knowledge of his majesty's government." The first mis- 
sion was cevtafnly ^tiown to the British government, at the 
time it occurred ; for the 'Kecretary of t?ie governor general ex- 
pressly states, "that the information and -political observations 
heretofore received frcm Mv. He«ry, were transmitt&d by his 
excellency to the secretary of ^tate, who had exprcseed his par- 
ticular apptobation of thetn ;"* the second mission was approv- 
-ed when it was known; afid it remains for the British govern- 
ment to explain, tipcn any established principles of moraHty 
and justice the essential difference between ordering the ©f- 
tensive acts to be done ; atid reaping the ffuit f those acta!, 
without eitherexptessly or tacitly condemning them. 

As'ain : These hostile rJtempts upon the peace and union of 
the U. S. precedihgihe declaration of war, have teen follow- 

■ ed by similar tnachiTiStions. subsequent to that event. The go- 
vernor general of the Canada? has endeavored, occasionally, in 
his proclamations and gcTieral orders, to dirsuade the rjilitia 

/ of the tT. S. from the performance of the duty which they owed 

II - ec the lett*t of $>?*■ Jamf s Craiq-, to Mr. Wenrv, c1at?tl Feb. 6, 1 809. 

% Sf^ethe.er.rne letter, and Mr.Kvij^nrl'sktter of the 26tli of.laiuiary, 18d9 
■V. •* |«« :Mr. Yivluiid's lett.?T, datfd tht- 26tb of June, 1809. 
_' tt *^^ ^^^^ letter fiom lord Liverpool to sir Ctorge Pi-evost, dated ibe 

■ t6ih of ^e^-Jteirber. 18)1. 

. "3^6 !'. ir. Rylaiid's letter of the 26^b of January, 1809. 

. n 



to tlieir injured country ; and the efforts at liiiebecan^ Halifax 
to kindle the flame of civil war, have been a^ incessant as they 
have been insidious and abortive. Nay, the governor of the island 
•f Barbadoes, totally forgetful" of the boasted a.rticle of the Bri- 
tish magna charta, in favor of foreign merchants found within 
the British dominiona, upon the breaking out ©f hoetilitiep, re- 
solved that every American merchant within hisjuriBdiction 
«t the declaration of war, should, at once, be treated as a prison- 
er of war; because every citizen of the United States was en- 
rolled m the militia; because the militia of the U. States wer« 
required to serve their country beyon-d the linits of the state to 
winch they particularly belonged ; and because the militia of" aU 
the states which had acceded to thismea^iire were, in the view 
of sir George Beckwith, acting as a French conscription. '"f 

Again: Nor was this courije of. conduct coiifined to the colo- 
nial authorities. On the 2t)th of Octt-ber, 1812, the British go- 
vernment issued an order in cooncil authorising the g.overnors 
of the British West India islands to grant licenses to American 
Vessels, for the importation and exportation of certain articles 
enumerated i» the ordfr ; but, in the instructions which accom- 
panied the <H'der, it v-sm e.xpre.siilj pro\idcd, that "whatever 
importations were proposed to be made from the U States of 
America should be by lieensop confined to. the ports in the eas^ 
ern states exclusively, unless there was reuse) to suppose, that 
the object of the order would not be fulfilled, if licenses v.ere 
•not granted (or importations from the other ports in the Unit- 
ed Stat6s.'J 

The president of the^^nited States has not hesitated to pla«c 
before the nation, with expressions of a just mdignstion, -'the 
policy of Great Britain thus proclaimed to the world ; introduc- 
ing into her niqdes of warfare, a system equally distinguished 
by the deformity of its features, and the depravity of its char> 
acter; and having for its object to dissolve the ties of allegi- 
ance, and the sentinjentsof loyalty, in the adversary nation ; arid 
to seduce and separate its compojient parte, the one from tJie 
other.-it 

2. Great Britain has violated the laws of humanity and hon* 
or, by sef king alliances in the prosecution of the war, with sa- 
vages, pirates, and slaves. 

The British agency, in exciting the Indians at all times to 
comm t hosliliticri upon the frontier of the United States, is too 
notorious to admit of a direct and general denial It has some- 
times ho\^ever, been said, that such conduct was unauthorised 
bv the British government: and the prince regent, seizing the 
single in^'.ance of an intimation alh-tlged tube given ontliepart 

+ Scii tii^ remarVable state ]rApev i-^sucd by governor Beckwilli, al Bar- 
batVips, on the mil of No\embi.r, 1«1>!. ,.,„ ,,., r 

* Rcr Hie piocluiriHtion of Hk^ govfin(.ror Pcrmuda, dated the '*»" .o» 
Jrmnan. IH14; and tlie instruclions ll-om the BriUsJi i>ccn;U.j,j ol ioit;»g» 
Aftiurs.' dated Nov. 9, 1812. , , . ^^^, „.,. 

i; See tl-.e iness.tjie dviu the president to congrets, dsitnl Uic:34Ui "t *c^ 
niary, 1^1.?. 



51 ■ 

of Sir James Craig, governor of tho Oanatias, tjiat an attach 
■was meditated by the Indians, has aftirmed, tliat ''the charga 
of exoicing the Indians to offenuive mea«;ure6 against the Unit- 
ed States was void of foundation ; that before the war began, a 
policy the nnost opi)o?ite had been uniformly purem d ; avd that 
proof of Ihis was tendered by Mr. Foster to the Ameiiean govern- 
itien!:."^ But is it not known in Europe as well as in Anjeriea, 
that t!ie Liritish Nor^h '.vest Company mainlaina constant inter- 
ccurse of trade ar>d council willithe Indians ; tliat their interests 
are often in Jirect collitjion with the interests of the inhabitants of 
the United States, and that by means of the inimical disposi- 
tions and th ■ active agencies of the company (seen, understoodj 
and tacitly aauctioned by the local au.tljoriti* s of Canada) all the 
evils of an Indian war may be shedupun tJie U. Stales, without 
the authority of a formal order^ emanating in.meuialely from 
the British government? Hence, the Americiin gDvernmcut, 
in an-^wer to tlie eva&ive protcbtations of the iJiitish minister 
residing at Washington, frankly commiinicuted the evidence tf 
Br.tibh agen^'y, which had been received at difi'erent period* 
iince the year 1807; and obscrvefl, "that whatever may have 
l>een thedigpositionof the British government, the conouct of 
its subordinate agents had tended to excite the hostihtj' of ths 
ladiin tribes towards the United States; and tliat in estimaiirg 
the comparative evidence on the suhject, it was impossible not 
to re "oliect tTie communication lately made retpecting tl.e con- 
duct of sir James Craig in another important transaction (the 
.•mployment of MV.. Henry as an accredited agent, to alienate 
and detach the citizens of a particular section of the Union 
from their government) which, it appeared, was approved by 
tiord Liverpcof 'ir 

The proof how-ver, that the British agents and military ofti- 
eer.s were guilty of the charge thus exhibited, become conclu- 
sive, when subsequent to the communication which was mado 
to the British minister, the defeat and flight of general Proctor's 
army, or. the of )>laced in the pos-session of the A« 

merican commander, the correspondence and papers of the Bri- 
tish oflicers Selected from the documents wliicli were obtain* 
ed upon that occa-ion, the contents of a few letters will serve 
to characterise .the whole of the mass. In these letters, wiit. 
ten by Mr. MKee ti>e British agent, to colonel F^nslmd, the 
commander of the British troops, snpersciibed "on his ^iajes- 
tv^s service," and dated during the months of July and August, 
1791. the period of general Wayne's successful expedition a- 
gajnst t!ie Indians, it appear* that the scalpa taken by the In- 
dians were sent to the Bi-itish establishment at the rapids of the 

4 See the prince regent's declaration of the 10th of January, 1813 
See also Mr Foster's letters to Mr. Monroe, anted the 2 ith I3ecen.b-r, 
]^^i^ ^'•■'{^^■^ '^^' ^^^ ^^^ ol\hv:e.lB]2 ,■ .-indMr. Monroe's answer, dat-d 
tb. 9ihot .J.,au::ry, 1812, and the iOtl, <,f June, 18!2, and the documents 
wnich accompany tht cone.«[>nnfleiiCf=-. 
U Sce-M*. Monroe's letier to Mr. Foster, itred the lOOi of June, 1812, 



52 

Miami;* that th'e hostile operations of the Indians were con- 
certed with the British agents and otficers ;t that when certain 
tribes of Indians "■ having completed the belts they tarried with 
scalp* and prisoners, and be^ng without provisions, resolved on 
going home^ it was lamented that liis niajesty's posts would 
d« live no security from the late great influx of li^dians into 
that part of the country, should they persist in their resolution 
of returning so soon',"$ thett " the British agents were immedi- 
ately to hold a CO Vinci 1 at the GUze, in order to try if they 
could prevail on tho I^ake Indians to remain ; bnt that without 
provijiions and ammunition being sent to that place it was con- 
ceived to ba exti'ein*»ly difficult to keep them together ;"y and 
thut "colonel England was^ making great exertions to supply 
the Indians with jirovisions ''fl But the language of the correS" 
pondence becomes at kngth so plain and direct, that it seems 
impossible to avoid the conclusion of a governmental agency on 
the part of Great Brilain, in advifring, aiding, and conducting 
the Indian war, while she professed friendship and peace to- 
wards the U. State*. '■'■ Scouts are sent (says Mr. MKee to co- 
lonel Enf^land,) to view the situation of the American army; 
and we now muster one thousand Indians. All the Lake iu- , 
dians, from Sugat)a downwards, should not lose one moment in I 
joining their brethren, as &very accession of strength is an ad- ^ 
dition to their spirits/""^ And again; "I have been employed 
several days in endeavoring to fix the Indians, who have been 
driven from their villages and cornlields, between the fort and 
the ba3-. Swan Creek is generally agreed upon, and will be a 
very convenient place for tiie delivery of provisions, &c."**— 
W liethcr, under the varioua proofs^ of the British agency, in ex- 
citing Indian hostilities against the United States, in a time of i 
peace, presented in the coUi'se of the present narrative, the 
prince reg'int'sdrcla ration, that "before tiie war began, a poii- 
ry the most opposite had been uniformly pursued," by the Bri- 
tish government.ft is to be aseribed to a want of information, 
or a want of ;-and*)r, the American goveruuicnt is not disposed, 
more particularly, to investigate. 

But, independent of these causes of just complaint, arishif^ 
in a time of peace, il will be foimd, that when the war was de- 
clared, the alliance of the British government with the Indians, j 
was avowed, upon prijiciples, the most novel, producing consc- | 
quences the most dreadful.— The savages were brought into the | 
war, upon the ordinary footing of allies, without regard to the 

• See the letter o< Mr. M'lvc to (;ol EiiRlainl, dated the 2nd July, l/'J*- 

•j- Sec the letter from the same to the same, dated the 51k of July, .I7a4. 

H See tlie same lottir. 

§ Sec the same letier. 

II Set the ^^ameleiiei-. 

f Sec the icttcrfrom Mr. M'Kee to Col. England, dated tiie loth ot Au 
g»is , 1794. 

•• Sec the letter from the same to the same, dated the 30th ot August, 
1704. 

\\ See tlie prince regent't declaration of the- 10th of January, 1813 



53 

inhuman character of their warfare ; which neither spares 'age 
loor sex ; and which is more desperate towards the captive, at 
the sifake; than even towards the combatant, in the nelu. It 
soemed to be a stipulation of the compact between the adies, 
that the British might imitate, but should not control the fero- 
city of the savages. — Wuile the liiitisn troops beliold, without 
compunction, the tomahawk and the scalping knife, brandished 
against prisoners, old men and children, and even againt preg- 
nant women, and while they exultingly accept the bloody scalps 
of the slaughtered Americans -jXt the Indian exploits in battle, are 
recounted and applauded by the British general orders. Rank, 
and station are assigned to them, in the military movements 
of the British army ; and the unhallowi-d league was- ratiiied, 
with appropriate embleni&^ b}' intertwining an American scalp, 
with the decorations of the-mace, which the ci »>niancler of iha 
northern army of the United States found in the icgisiativo 
chamber oi York, the capital of Upper Canada. 

In the single scene, that succet:ded the battle of Fi-enchtown, . 
near the r.ver Raisin, where the American troops were defeated 
hy the allies, under the command of gen. Proctor, there will be 
found conC"^ titrated upen indisputable proof, an illustration of the 
honors of the warfare, which G. Britain has pursued, and still 
pursues; in co-operiaton with the savages of the south, as well 
as with the savages of the north. The American army capitulat- 
ed, on the 22d Jan. 1813 ; yet, aften- the faith of the British com- 
mander had been pledged, in the terms of the capitulation ; and 
while the Briti&li oliicei s and soldiers, silently and exnltirgiy con- 
templated the scene, some of the Amei'ican prisoners of war 
were tomahawked, some were- ehot and some w-ere burnt. Many 
of the unarmed inhabitants of the Michigan territory were mas- 
gftcred ; their property was plundered, and their horses were 
d.'strcyed.ijii The dead bodi's of the mangled Americans, were 
exposed, unburied, to be devoured by dogs and swine:" because, 
as the Biitish officers declared, the Indians would not permit 
the interment ;"§(. and sotne of the Americans, who survived 
the carnage, had been extricated from danger, only hy being 
p'lrchiised at a price, a& a part of the booty belonging to the Ii>» 
dians- But, to complete this dreav^ful view ©f human depravi- 
ty, and human wretchedness, it is only necess«i'y to add, that 
an American physician, who wns despatched with a flag of 
truce, to ascertain the situation of his wounded brethren, and 
two persons, his companions, were intercepted by the Indians, , 

+ .Sc • Lne lelter from the .\nierican general. Jhirrison to tlie British ge*i . 
Froctor. . 

S.e A letter from the British MSjor Milir, Inflian agent, to Col. Proctor 
dated i!ic 2(5 Ji of fee|Uember, \^\2, and a letter li'om Col. St, Gtortje toCol. 
Pi'OGtor, diited the '^^h of October, 1812, fouiKl among Col. Proctor's pa- 
pers. 

||1[ See I'Ve rr-nortof the committee of tlie liouse ofRo.prescntativf s, on the 
Slst of July, 1812 ; and the d( positions and docum^m.'j accompanying- it. 

4§.^ ee the 'jfficuJ report of Mr. Hakor, die :iijent fjr • tlie prisoners^ . to 
Btig. .Gen. Wiiiuhefcter, vUtedlhe i6s.h of f ^bruiiry, 1813. 

D 3 



54 

in their KuTrane niipston; the privilege of the flag was disre- 
garded by the British officers ; the physician, aftvr being m'ouii- 
ded, and one of his companions, were made prisoners ; and tha 
third person of the paity was killt-dlill 

But the savage, who liad never known the restraints of civil- 
ized life, and tlic pirate who had broken the bonds of society, 
Were alike tlje objects of British eonciliatibn and alliance, fur 
the purposes of an unpuralelled warfare. A horde of pirates 
and outlaws had formed a confederacy and establishment on the 
island of Barratana, near the mouth of the river Mississippi. 
Will Europe believe, that the commander of the British forces^ 
addressed the leader of the confederacy, from the neutral terri- 
tory of Pensacola, "calling upon him, with his brave followers, 
to enter into the service of ureat Britain, in which he should 
have the rank of captain ; promising that lands should be given 
to them all, in proportion to their respective ranks, on a peace 
takiflg place ; assuring them, that their property should be guar- 
anteed and their persons protected; and asking, m return, that 
they would cease all hostilities against Spain, or the allies of G 
Britain, and place their ships and vessels, under the British 
commanding officer on the station, until the commander in 
chiefs pleasure should be known, with a guarantee of their fair 
value at all events ?'* There wanted only to exemplify the 
debas nient of such an act, the occurrence, that the pirate 
should spurn the proffered alliance, and accordingly, Lalitte'o 
answer was indignantly given, by a delivery of the letter, con- 
taining the British proposition, to the American governor of Lou- 
3e>)na. 

There we'e other sources, however, of support, which Great 
Britaiii was prompted by her vengeance to employ, in opposi- 
tion to the plainest dictates of her own colonial policy. The e- 
vents, which have extirpated, or dispersed, the white popula- 
tion of 8t. Domingo, arc in t!ie recollection of all men. Although 
British humanity might not shrink, from the infliction of simi- 
lar calamities upon the soutliern states of America, the danger 
of that course, either as an incitement to a revolt of the slaves 
in the British islands, or as acause of retaliation, on the part of 
the United States ought to have admonished her against its 
adop ion. Yet, in a formal proclamation issued by the com- 
jn.uider in chief of his Britannic majesty's squadrons, upon the 
Aincrican stttion, the .slaves of the American planters werein- 
fitedto join the Bririah .standard, i'> a covert phraseology, that 
afF>r('e'i but a slight veil for the real dei^ign. Thus, admiral 
Coehrane, recitina, "tliatit h^d been ropresented to him, tliat 
Wany persons now resident in the V/iiited States, had f»xpicspe.l 
a desire to withdraw therefrom, v/ith a view of entering inlf> 

^![ T<\ Mldition to this desciiptlon of saviero warf;ire, under British auspi- 
«c.s ; s<e th<- f;,c;s cfrntaliKxl in the coiTespcndeiice beiwecn (ilen. HarhsoR 
a d (i'h. Dniii HiOtid. 

• Sic "In letter addrpssetl by Rdward N'lcliol.i, It. col. cnmmanilinghia 
l!rt'a:.>i: M )■ -ly's foiee ituh." Ft riil;v., ' ■ XJonsicur L»fittc,or Uic crnj' 



ih' majesty''8 service^ or of being received as free icHlers it»t^ 
8c>nie oi" tii« majostys colonies," proclaimed, tliat • ail those who 
might be disposed to emigrate frum the United States, vtonld, 
with their familiea, be recerveu on board his nmjeely's shipb or 
vessels of war, or at the military posts that miglit be ebtablish- 
ed upon, or near, tlie coast of the United States, wiien they 
would have tlieir ciiuice of either entering into his niajesly'a 
sea w land forces, or of being sent as free settlers to the 
Biitish possessions in JNorth America, or the West Indies, 

wiiere they would meet all due encouragement "f But 

even the negroes seem, in contempt, oi* disgust, to have i-esist- 
ed the solicitation ; no rebellion, or massacre, ensued ; ami the 
allegation, often repeated, that in relation to those who were 
seduced, or forced, from the service of their masters, instanceo 
have occurred of some being afterwards transported to the Bii- 
tieh West India {sl^x's, and there sold into slavery, for the be- 
nefit of the captors, remains withor.t contradiction. So coni- 
plicated an act of injustice, would demand the reprobation oi 
mankind. And let the British government, which professes a 
just abhorrence of the African slave trade; which endeavors to 
impose, in that refe*pect, restraints upon the domestic policy of 
France, Spain, and Portugal ; ant-wer, if it can, the solemn 
oharge against their faith, and their humanity. 

3. Great Britain has violated the laws of civilized warfare, 
by plundering private property ; by outraging female honof* ; 
by burning unprotected cities, towns, villages, and houses ; and 
by laying waste whole districts of an unresisting country. 

The menace and the practice of the British naval and militar 
py force, " to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts^ 
Hpoii the American coast, as might be found assailable," have 
been excused upon the pretext of retaliation, for the wanton des^ 
fcructioTi committed by the American army in Upper Canada ;"'^ 
but the fallacy of the pretext has already been es^posed. It wilt 
be recollected, however, that the act of burning Newark wag 
m8tantaneou.5ly disavowed by the American government ; that 
it occurred in December 1813 — and that sir George Prevost 
himself acknowledged, on the lOtli of February, 18It, that the 
arieasire of retaliation for all the previously imputed miscon- 
duct of the American troops, was then full and e^'mpiete.H Be- 
tnveen the month of February, ISl'i, when that acknowledge-^ 
ment was made, and the month of August, '[SM, v>^hen the Bri- 
tish admirars denunciation was i^sued, whaf are theotitrsgca 
upon the part of the Ameriean troops in Canada, to jit;ti- 
fy a call for retaliation ? No: it was the system, not the in i- 
<3ent, of the war ; and intelligence of the syst<^m had been re- 
ceived at Washington, from the American agents in Kurope, 
with reference to the operations of admiral Warren, upon the 
shores of the Chesapeake, long before Admiral Cochrane had 

■j- -^ec ailiniral Cochrane'^ procliiinatioii, dated Bermud:i, tiie 2iiil of A- 
pril, 1S14. 

t See admiral Cochrane's letter to Mr. Mour )c, I'ated .Aufj^nst 1H, 1314. 

II .See sir George Prevost's ieUer lo gen. VVittiii.»©.i, dated the lO^dS 
Februiry,1814. 



56 

attweeded to the command of the British fleet on the Amerieaa 

atation. 

As an appropriate introduction to the kind of war, which 
Great Britain intended to wage against the inhabitatits of ihc 
United Estates, transactions occurred in JEngland, under the a- 
vowed uii'Cctioii of the government itself that could notfai! to 
wound the moral sense of evepv candid and generous spectator. 
Ail theoilicers and mariners of the American Eit-rchant ships, 
who, having los; their vessels in other places, had gone to Eng- 
land on the way to Anu'rica ; or who"had been employed irl 
B'Mtish merchant ships, but were desirous of returning nonie j 
or who hud been delanied, in consequence of condemnation of 
their vessels under the Biitish ordf is in council ; or who had 
arrived in England, through any of the other casuahies of the 
seafaring li'e ; were condemned to be treated as prisoners of 
war; nay, some of thnn were actnaily impressed, while solicit- 
ang their pasports ; ait.iough not om of their number had been 
in any way, engaged in ho^tiliti eg against G- B. ; and although 
the Americangovei-nnient had affordi^'d every facility to the de- 
parture of the same class, aa well aa c^ every class of British sub- 
jects from the IT. S. for a rcasonabUe period after the declaration 
of war.* But this act of injustice, for which even the pretest of 
retaliation has not been adiancfd, was accompanied by another 
of still greater cruelty and oppression The A jnerican seamen 
who had been enlisted, or impressed, into tiie naval service of 
Great Britain, were long setamed, and many of them are yet 
retained, on board of British ships of war. where they are com- 
pelled to combat against their country and ihcii* friends: and 
even when the British government tardily and reluctantly re- 
cognized the citizenship of impressed Americans, to the num- 
ber exceeding. lCi<») at a single naval stati(>n. and dismissed tht-m 
fromits service on the water ; it was only to immure them a3 
pris;»nt rs of war on shore. — The*e unfortunate peisons, who 
had passed into the po\7er of the British government, by a vio- 
lation of theiv own rights and inclinations, as well as of th« 
rii;lits of their country, and who could only ber^garded as- the 
an<!ils of unhiwful violence, were, nevertheless, treated as tlie 
iTi-ulU of lav/ful war. Such was the in lemniflcation which G Brit. 
a,in offered for the wrongs, thatgiic had inflicted ; and such the 
rewa.'d. which she b'stowed, for services that she had received. f 

jSior has the spirit of Bntisn warfare been confined to 
Tlolations of the us.iges cf civilized nations, in relation to th© 
T" it..fl S^tt'^.s. Tlic system df blockade, by orders in council, 
fjM been revived; and the 4^meri(iun co. st from Maine to Lou» 
isiana, has b"en declared, i>y tite proclamatioa of a British ad- 
miral, to be in a- st.tte of blockade, which every day's ohs-rva- 
tion proves" to be, piactically, inetfectaal, and which, indet d, 

* Sec- .Ml- Ileu.sley's coi-respondencr wiUi die Brilibh govcrBment, in Oc 
toK-r, Nfovcmbcr, a>id December, 1K12. 

Set, also, tlie act ot C-nipi-e.-.s, pass'jd the 6th of July, 1H12. 

t Sec the Ictwr from Mr. Deasley to Mr. M'Leay, dated tlic KJ'U of Mtuplii* 



^•91 



5T 

tiie wliole of the British navy would be enabled to enfijrae ana' 
maintain^ Neither the orders in council, aoknowkdgL'd to be 
geneiaHj unlawful, and declared to be merely retahatory upon 
France ; nor the iierliu and Milan deci-rjcH, which jilaced the Bri- 
tish Islands in a state of blockade, Without the to.ce of a single 
squadron to maintain it , were, in principle, mere irii.iious '.o 
the rights ut nt-atral coromeice, than the existing bloekade 
of the Unilcd Sratos. The revival, therefore, uf the e^ stem, 
witliout the retaUialo.-ypietext, rnustderaoni?trate to the world- 
adiitrti-niination, on the part of Great Jbvitain, to aoquiie a com- 
mercial monopoly, by every demonstration of her naval piAvvT, 
Tlie trade of the" United States with Russia, and with other 
northern powers, by whose goyennnieuts no ediets, violatir g. 
neutral ri-iits, had been issv>eu, was cut oiY by the operation o£. 
the Brititli orders in council-of the year lb07, as efiectoally r.S' 
their trade with Prance and her allies, aUhough the vetaliatury 
principle was totally inapplicable to the ease. And the block- 
ade o'i Ih ' vear 1814, h an attempt tootstroy tlie trade of those 
cations, and, indeed, of all b^ie other ni.tion-. of Europe, with the 
United States ; while Great Britain, herself, with the same 
policy and ardo? that mai'ked her illicit trade with Fraiu-e, 
^vheii France was her enemy, encourages a elanaestine traltic 
between her subjects and the American citizens, wherever her 
possessions came in contact with the terntory of the U. States. 

But approaching nearer to the scenes of plunder ana violence 
of cruelty and contiagration, which the British warfare exhic-te 
on the coast of the United States, it must be agam airked, wl;a* 
acts of the American government, of its ships of war, or of its 
armiesj had occurred, or were even alleg* d, as a pretext for 
the perpetration of this series of outrages ? It wiU not be 
asserted, that they were sanctioned by the usages of modevu 
war; because the sense of all Europe would revolt at the asstr- 
tion. It will Bot be said, that they v,-ere the unauthorised excepeeB 
of the British troops ; because scarcely an act of plunder and 
violence, of cruelty and conflagration, has been committed, ex- 
cept in the immediate presence, under the positive order?, and 
with the personal agency cf- British officers. It must not be a- 
gain insinuated, that they were provo-ked by the Ameriem ex- 
amp'e; because it has been demonbirated, that all such in^^inu- 
ations are without colcxjr and v>-ithout proof And, after all, 
the dreadful and disgraceful progress of the British arms, will 
be traced as the effect of that animosity, arising out of i ccol- 
iections connected with the American revolution, which has al- 
ready been noticed ; or, as the effect of that jealousy, which 
the commercial enterprise, and native resources, of the United 
States, aie calculated to excite in the councils of 'a nation, aim- 
ing at universal dominion upoa the ocean. 

In the month of April, 1813, the inhabitants of Toplar Jj-land, 
m the bay of Chesapeake, were pillaged ; and the cattle and other 

i See the successive blockades announced by the British govenwnc.T:!, 
and the successive naval coniniandei-s-on the AmericAa station. 



5t 

live stock of the farmers, beyond what the enemy couid'-fttw 
move, were wantonly killed * 

In the same, month 'of April, tlis ^7}ia^f, the store aiul the 
#shei\v 3.1 Frenootuwu lainlirig, were dewtroyrd, atidtbe private 
stores, and 5 tore houses, in the viiiig© of Fieachtown, were 
burnt.f 

In the san^e month of April, the enemy landed repeatedly oii 
Sharp's island, and made a general sweep of the atock, affect- 
ing, liovvevcr, to p..y for a part of it.^ 

On the 3d of May, 1813, the town of Havredegrace was pil- 
laged and burnt hy a force under the command of admiral Coule- 
burn. The British officors being admonished, " triat with civr- 
lized nations at war, private property had always been respect- 
ed,'' hastily replied, '-that as th'3- Amtricaris wanted war, tiiey 
should now feel it.s elYeiits ; and that the town slioald be laid in- 
ashes" They broke the windows of die church ; they porloined' 
the houses of their furniture ; they stripped women and chil- 
dren of their cloathes .•, and when in unfortunate female com* 
pinined that she could not h-Avc her house with her little c!;ii- 
dren, she was unfeelingly told, " that her house should be burut 
with herself a 'd children in it;'|l 

On the 6th of i^iay, 1SI3, Fvadeilcktown and Georgetown; 
s"tuHted on Sas-safias rlvel* in the state oi' IviarV'tind, were pil- 
laged and burnt, and the adjacent count:y was iaid waste, by a 
force under the command of admiral Cot.K,bui'n ; and the olScfei-a 
were the most active on the occasion i} 

Oa the 2:i:d uf June, 1813, the Br:tish fuvees made an attack 
upon Craney Ihhmd, with a vi.^w to o jtaui po^se^sion of Nor- 
folk, which the commanding othcers.h?-! p. omised, in case of. 
BUecefS, Logive up to the p^n.ndr'r oi th^r troops. II Tlie British. 
wei«e repu.bcd ; but enraged by def at und disappointment, their 
course was directed to Hampton, w'iicli tliey ontn-ed on t' e 
of June. The hccno that endued, exceeds all tower of d<;s. rip- 
tion ; and a detail of facts won-l be otTensiv to the fcelingi- of 
decorum, as well as of humnni;y. "A dt;fence^^ss and unre- 
aisting town was given up to indiscriininale ;)iilyg" ; though ci- 
viliaeci war tolerates this only as to fortified places cn-ried bv as- 
sault, and alter 6U»)imons. Itidividuals m:Ue a-j<i female, were 
atripjied nake<l ; a sick man was stabbed twice in the hospital ; 
another sick nifin was shot in his l)ed, and in the arms of his 
wife, who w,is also wounded, long aftoi- t!v^ retreat of the A ;io 
rican troops ; and females, the married and the single, sulfered 

• See llie dejiositioii of VVm. Sears. 

t See. the; dip)-,itioi6 of T .isby Anderson and Cordelia Pennington, 

t -See .lacnl) (ubsoTi's dcjiDsitio . 

It See ilic d(.pn..,irK,n of William T. Kilpatrick, James Wood, Rosanna. 
Moore :in.l R. .VJansficld. 

§ Seu iht; d< posit lon.s of .Tohn Stavclv, William Spencer, Joshua 
W.ird.Jimes Scanlan, Rirhaid R.iinabv, V. B. Cliandlfar, lonathan Green- 
%voo(l, ,J:)hn .^.Ijf n. V. Rohrrt'.on, M \.'«' mnon, pikI J. T. Veazev. 

V .Sue t;«ici-al ia^ior* kite* to the btcrelary of ww» daltd the 3d of July,. 



4h««5tremity of personal abuse from the troofB of the en«n»y, 
«.ncl from the iufaluated negroen, at their instigation.' ♦* Ttie 
fact that these atiocities were committed, the commaiider of the 
Biiish fleet admiral Warren, and the commander of the Bri- 
tish troops, ftii- SidMoy Beckwith, admitted, without hesilalion,tf 
but thev resorted, as> on otiier occasions, to tlie unworthy and 
unavailing pretext of a justifiable retaliation It was said by ihe 
British General, '' that the exci'SS'^s at Hampton, were occai>ion- 
ed by an oecai-rence, at the recent attempt at Craney island, 
^hen the British troops ina ba 'ge, sunk by the American gnns^ 
cluvig to the v\-reck of the boat- bvit several Amerieaiie waded 
<iff frorn t^e i-ilaud, tired upon, aud shot these men." The truth 
of the assertion was denied ; the act, if it had been perpetrated 
hy the A-mcricao troops, was promptly disavowed by thei-r com- 
mander ; and a hoaid of officers appointed to investigaie the 
facts, after stating the evidence, repcvted an '' unbiassed opinion, 
4hat the charge againtt the Auicrican troops was unsupporied-; 
and that the character- uf the Anierkao -solditr for humanity 
and magnanimity had not been committed, but on the contrary 
confirmed "'ft The result oithis enquiry was communicated to 
the British geBeral ; reparation wasdemandrd; but it was soon 
j>er6eived, !hat whatever might personally be the liberal dispo- 
sitions of that officer, no adcKjaate reparation could be made, as 
Ahe conduct of hig troops was directed aad sauctioued by hia go« 
Ti'.rnment.l!!! 

l&uring the period of these transactions, the village of Lew^*- 
town, nesw- the capes of the Delav.-are, inhabitv-'d ciiiefly by ii^b- 
ermen and pilots, and the village of Stonington, seated upoa 
jthe shores of Connecticut, were uasuccej-sfully bombarded. — 
Armed parties, led by olTicers of rank, landed daily from th^ 
British squadron, making predatory incursions into the op#i» 
country; rilling and burning the iwiuscs and cottages of peaces^- 
i>lc and retired families; pillaging the produce of the planter 
and the farmer; (their tobacco, their grain, and their cattle J) 
committing violence on the persons of the unprotected inhabi- 
tants ; seizing upon slaves., wherever they could be found, at 
-booty of war; and breaking open tho coffins of the dead, ia 

** See the teltrers from Gen, Tuylcir ts admiml Wwren, dated the 29tk 
'Of June, 181 J ; to gen. sir Sidney McckwjtJi, daied the 4tli and 5lh of July, 
1813 ; to the secretary ot war, dated the 2d of July, 1813 ; and to captaia 
Meyers, of the la-st date. 

See, also, the lettei' from Major Crutchfield to Governor Rurhour, dated 
■the 20tU of J:iTie, 1813 ; the betters from Capt. Cooper to liatenant pfovernor 
Mcillnry, dattd in July, 1813; the report of Messrs (Jrlffiti and Lively to 
major Crutchfieid, dated the 4di of July, 1813 i and col. P;irkci-'s publica- 
tjo;'j in tlieEiKjuirerc 

•j-f See adn-.iral W'.'.rren's l<>tter to E^eneral Taylor, d^d the 29thof June^ 
1813 ; sir tfidii'-y Heckwitli's letter to gtnx-ral Taylor, dited the same day ; 
and the report of Captain Meyers to pcfieral Taylor of .July 2, 131.1. 

+i; See the report of 'he proceeding's of ilie board ofofiicers, appointed 
by tlie general I uder, of tlve Istof Jnlv, 1813. 

"li'l'See sfehei-.s! Tavlor's letter to S'.r Sidney Beckwith, dated the 5Ui pf 
.tjily . 1 8 I3,i and the answer of the following day. 



uaarc^ of plunder, or committirig: robbeTy on t1ac s,Ttars cf 4 
♦church at Chaplico, St. luagoes, and Tappufaannock, with a ea- 
■cnligioiis rage. 

Buttle consummp.tion of Brilish outrage, yet remains to be 
stated, fpom the awful and iinp.iishable meinoviala of the capi- 
'tal at Washington II has beenaleady observed, that the mas- 
sacre of the American prisoners, at the nver Raisin, occurred 
in January, 1813; that thpoughcut the same year, the dei^olat- 
dng warfare o*^ G, Britain, without once a ledginp; a retaliatory 
-excuse, made the shoies of the Chesapeake, and of its tributa- 
ry rivers, a general scene of ruin and distress ; and that in the 
loonth of Febntary, 1814>, sir George Prevost himself, acknow- 
ledged, that the measures of vetatiatioi), for the unauthorized 
iurning of Newark, "in December, 18 i3, and for allth* exces* 
tcs which had been imputed to the American army, was at that 
tin>e full and comnletc. The United Stales, indeed, regarding 
■'What was da« t« the^r o^vn character rather than what was due 
to the coaduct of their enemy, had forborne to authoftixea just 
retribution ; and even disdained to place the destruction of New- 
ark (o retaliatory account for the general pillage and eonfligrati on 
which had been previously perp>etrated. It wa« not without as- 
toTiishment, "therefore, that after more than a year of patient 
^suffering, they heard it announced in Aug'ist, lbl4, that th6 
towns and districts upon their coast, were to be destroyed an3 
iaid waste, ia revenge for unspecified and unknorvvn acts of de- 
struction, which were charged against the American troeps in 
XJppcr Canada. The letter of admii'al Cochrane wers dated on 
the 18th, but it was not received until tTie 31st of August, 1814o 
In the intermediate time, the enemy debarked a body of about 
Ave or &ix thousand troops at Benediot^.on the Patuxcnt, and by 
a sudden and steady march through Bladensburg, appronched 
the city of Washington. Thi« city has been selected for the 
.«eat of the American goverj^ment ; but the number of its house* 
does not exceed ■90&, spread ever an extensive site ; the 
whole number of its inhabitant* floes not exceed 6000; an-i 
the adjaceBt country is thinly populated. Although the nece»- 
gary precautions Tiad been ordered, to assemble the militia, for 
the defence cfthe city, a varfety of causes combined to render 
the defence unsuccessful; and the enemy took possession of 
WishiTigtou on the evening of the S'l-th of August, 1614. The 
commanders of the British force held at that time admiral Coc}]^ 
Tarie's desolating order, although it was then unknown to the go- 
vernment and the pcopl*- af the United States ; but con-sc'ious of 
the danzer of «o distant a separation fi'om the British fleet, and 
dfsirous^ by every plausible artifice, to deter the citizens from 
ilying to arnss against the invaders, th-ey disavowed all design 
of injuring private persons and property, and eave assurances of 
protcctinn, whcrerer there was submifsion General Ross and 
admiral t'ockburn then proceeded in p«rrton to direct and super- 
intend the business of conflagration; in a place which had yield- 
ed to thoir nnn-i, which was unfortifi«'d, and by which no hos- 
tility was threatened. Th«y BCt fire to the capitol, wiUua whose 



61 

walls were contained the halls of the congress of the United 
States the hall of their highest tribunal for the administration 
of iustic**- *^° ouoUivoo of the legislatiirp. «n<l tlip nqtion»1 li- 
brary. They set fire to the edifice, which the United States had 
erected for the residence of their chief magistrate. And they 
set fire to the costly and extensive buildings, erected for the ac- 
commodation of the principal ofticers of the government, in the 
transaction of the public business. These magnificent monu- 
ments of the progress of the arts, which America had borrow- 
ed from her parent Europe, with all the testimonials of taste 
and literature which they contained, were on the memorable 
night of the 24th of August, consigned to the flames, while Bri- 
tish officers of high rank and command, united with their troops 
in riotous carousal, by the light of the burning pile. 

But the character of the incendiary had so entirely supercede 
ed the character of the soldier, on this unparallelled expedition, 
that a great portion of the munitions of war, which had not 
been consumed, when the navy yard was ordered to be deetroj'- 
ed upon the approach of the British troops, were left untouched ; 
and an extensive foundery of cannon, adjoining the city of/ 
Washington, was left uninjured ; when in the night of the 25th 
of August, the army suddenly decamped, and returning, with 
evident marks of precipitation and alarm, to their ships, left 
the interment of their dead, and the care of their wounded to 
the enemy, whom they had thus injured and insulted, in viola- 
tion of the laws of civilized war. 

The counterpart of the scene exhibited by the British army, 
was next exhibited by the British navy. Soon after the midnight 
flight of general Ross from Washington, a squadron of Bri- 
tish ships of war ascended the Potomac and reached the town 
oi Alexandria on the 27th of August, 1814. The magistrates, 
presuming tliat the general destruction of the town was intend- 
ed, asked on what terms it might be saved. The naval com- 
mander declared, " that the only conditions in his power to of- 
fer'' were such as not only required a surrender of all naval and 
©rdnance stores, (public and pi'ivate) but of all the shipping; 
'iud of all the merchandise in the city, as well as such as had been 
removed, since the 19th of August." The conditions, therefore, 
amounted to the entire plunder of Alexandria, an unfortifictl 
a^nd unresisting town, in order to save the buildings from de- 
struction. The capitulation was made, and the enemy bore a- 
way tlie fruits of his predatory enterprise in tiiamph. 

But even while this narrative is passing fiom He re'^s a 
»e\v retaliatory pretext has been formed to cover the disgrace of 
the scene which was transacted at Washington. In tlie address 
•of the governor in chief to the provincial parliament of (ana- 
da, on the 24th of January, 1815, it is asserted, in amblgroug 
language, " that, aa a just retribution, the proud capitol at Wa- 
shingion has experienced a similar fate to that infuct'd by an 
American force on the seat of ixovernment in Upper Canr.d?. ' — • 
The town of York, in Upper Canada, was taken by the An.e* 



62 

srican tvmy under the command of general Dearborn, on the 
the 27th of April, 1813 ;* and it was evacuated on the sue- 
ceedmg Ist of May; although it vms ngaixx vioitod fo». » day by 
an American squadron under the command of commodore 
Chauncey, on the 4th of August.f At the time of the capture, 
the enemy on his retreat set fire to his magazine, and the inju- 
ry produced by the explosion was great and extensive ; but nei- 
ther then nor on the visit of commodore Chauncey, was any 
edifice which had been erected for civil uses, destroyed by the 
authority of the military or the naval commandei'; and the des- 
truction of such edifices, by any part of their force, would have 
been a direct violation of the positive orders which they had is- 
sued. On both occasions, indeed, the public stores of the ene- 
my were authorised to be seized, and his public store houses to 
be burnt ; but it is known that private persons, houses, and pro 
perty, were left uninjured. If, therefore, sir George Prevost 
deems such acts inflicted on " the seat of government in Uppe-' 
Canada" similar to the acts which were perpetrated at Wash 
ington, he has yet to perform the task of tracing the features of 
similarity ; since, at Washington the public edifice* which had 
been erected for civil uses were alone destroyed, while the muni- 
tions of war, and the founderies of cannon, remained untouched. 

If, however, it be meant to afiirm, that the public edifices, 
occupied by the legislature, by the chief magistrate, by the 
courts of justice, and by the civil functionaries of the province 
of Upper Canada, with the provincial Library, were destroyed 
by the American fores; it is an occurrence which has never been 
before presented to the view of the American government by 
its own officers, as a matter of information ; nor by any of the 
military or civil authorities of Canada, as matter of complaint ^ 
it is an occurrence which no American commander had in any de- 
gree a thorised or approved ; and it is an occurrence which the 
American government would have censured and repaired with 
equal promptitude and liberality. 

But a tale told thus out of date, for a special purpose, camu 
command the con.adence of the intelligent and the candid au- 
ditor : for, even if the fact of conflagration be true, suspicion 
must attend the cause for so long a concealment, with motives 
so strong for 3,n immediate disclosure. When Sir George Pre- 
vost. in February, 181 i, acknowleged that the measure of re- 
taliation was full and complete, for all the preceeding miscon- 
duct imputed to the American troops, was he not apprised or 
every fact, which had occured at Y< rk, the capital of Uppei- 
Canada, in themonths of Apriland August, 1813? Yet,neither 
then, nor at any arAecedent period, nor until tlie2-Uh Jan. 1815 
was the slightest ir.timation given of the retalUatory pretext, 
which is now ofi'ered. When the admiruls Warren and Coch- 
rane wt;re employed in pillaging and burning the villages on the 

' See theleUi • ; fiom (icr.. Dearborn to the secretary >f wax-, dated the 
26t'- ami 27lh ■>. April, 1313. . , 

t J -e tl»« letter hom commodore Cliauncry to the secretary of the navy, 
dated Oic 4lh of Auijust, 1813. 



es 

ahores of the Chesapeake, were not all the retalliatory pretexts 
for the barbarous warfare known to those commanders ? And 
yet, " the fate inflicted by an American force on the seat of go- 
vernment in Upper Canada," was never suggested in justification 
or excuse? and finally, when the expedition was formed in Au- 
gust, 1814, forthe destruction of the public edifices at Washington, 
was not the " similar fate which had been inflicted by an Amer- 
can force on the seat of Government in Upper Canada," known 
to admiral Cochrane, as well as to Sir George Prevost, who 
called upon the admiral (it is alleged) to carry into effect mea- 
sures of retaliation, against the inhabitants of the United States? 
And yet, both the call, and the compliance, are founded (not 
■ nnon the destruction of the public edifices at York, but) upon 
'antoB destruction committed by the American army in Up« 
Canada, upon the inhabitants of the province, for whom a- 
reparation was demanded 

1 obscurity, then, dwells upon the fact alledged by Sir G. 
ost, which has not been dissipated by enquiry. Whether 
any public edifice was improperly destroyed at York, or at 
what period the injury was done, if done at all, and by what 
hand it was inflicted, are points that ought to have been 
stated when the charge was made ; surely it is enough on 
the part of the American government to repeat, that the fact 
alleged was never before brought to its knowlege, for investiga- 
tion, disavowal or reparation. The silence of the military and 
civil officers of the provincial government of Canada, indicates^ 
too a sense of shame, or a conviction of the injustice of the pre- 
sent reproach. It is knowh,that there could have been no oth- 
er public edifice for civil uses destroyed in Upper Canada, thf^i 
the house of the provincial legislature, a building of so little 
cost and ornament, as hardly to merit consideration ; and cer- 
tainly affording neither parallel nor apology, for the conflagra- 
tion of the splendid structures, which adorned the metropolis of 
the United States. If, however, that house was indeed destroy- 
may it not have been an accidental consequence of the con- 
)u, in which the explosion of the magazine involved the 
1? Or, perhaps it was hastily perpetrated by some of 
mraged troops in the moment of anguish, for the loss of a 
v'ed co-nmander, and their companions, who had been kil- 
^^u uy that explosion, kindled as it was by a defeated enemy, for 
the sanguiaary and unavailing purpose : Or, in fine, some suf- 
fering individual, remembering the slau;jhter of his brethren 
at the river Raisin, and exasperated by the spectacle of a hu- 
man scalp, suspended in the legislative chamber, over the seat 
of the speakei-, may, in the paroxysm of his vengeance, have 
applied, unaathorised and unseen, the torch of vengeance and 
destruction. 

Many other flagrant instances of Br-tish violence, pillage and 
conflagration, in defiance of the laws of civilized hostilities, 
might beaided to the catalogue, whii-h has been exhibited ; but 
the enuujeration would be superfluous, and it is time to close »o 



§4 

ipaintul an exposition of the causes and character of'4;he war.<«« 
The exposition had become necessary to repel and refute thj 
charges of w.v. Prince Regent, when by his declaration of' Jan-, 
uary, 1813, he unjustly states the United Stites to be the ao-gres- 
sors in the war ; and insultingly ascribes the conduct ot" the A- 
merican government to the influence of French councils. It 
was also necessary to vindicate the course of the United States 
in ihe prosecution of the war ; and to eyposs to the view <>fthe 
worla, the barbarous system of hostilities, which the British go- 
vernment has pursued. Having accomplished these purposes, 
the Americap government recurs with pleasure to a coutempla- 
tion of its early and continued efforts, for the restoration of 
peace. Notwichstanding the pressure of recent wrongs, and the 
unfriendly and illiberal disposition, which Great Britain.has, 
at all times, manifested cowards tiiem, the United States have 
never indulged sentiments incortpatible with the recip:ocity of 
good will, and an intercourse of mutual benefit and advantage. 
They can never fepme, at seeing the British nation great, pros- 
perous and happy ; safe in its maritime rights ; and powerful in 
its means of maintaining them ; but at the same time, they can 
never cease to desire, that the councils of Great Britain should 
be guided by justice, and a respect for the equal rights of other 
nations. Her maritime power may extend to all" the legiti- 
mate objects of her sovereignty, and her commerce, without 
endangering the independence and peace of every other govern- 
ment. A ballance of power in this respect, is as necessary on 
the ocean as on the land ; and the contx'oul timt it gives to the 
nations of the woi4d, over the actions of each other, is as .'valuta, 
ry in its operation to the individual government, whieli f<iels it • 
as to all the govrnmints, by whicb, on the just principles of mu- 
tual support and defence it may be exercised. On fair and equa' 
and honorable terms, therefore, peace is at the choice of Great 
Britain ; but if she still determine upon war, the United States 
reposing upon the justness of their cause ; and upon the patri, 
otism of their citizens ; upon the distinguished valour of their 
land and naval forces ; and above all, upon the dispensations of 
divine providence; are ready to maintain the contest, for tha 
preservationof the national independence, with the same encc- 
£ry and fortitude, which were displayed in acquiring it, 

Washington. February 10, 1815. 



